Example:

I have 2 Blood Angels detachments.

Baal Strike Force (BA codex) buys a non-dedicated drop-pod.
Archangels Strike Force (Shield of Baal) terminators ride in above drop-pod?

I know it gets hairy with the Blood Angels being "battle brothers" with themselves, but is this subject to the faq rule meaning they can't use it?

The Allies chart just covers interactions between models when they are from different Factions. If they're from the same Faction and are in the same army, the Allies chart is ignored! As such, yes, Blood Angels from two different detachments can still start the game deployed in each other's transports. They are NOT "Battle Brothers" with themselves*.

*this is a common misconception, as it only shows up when you have Blood Angels from two different armies, such as your own force of Blood Angels being allied with a friend's force of Blood Angels.

Except for the weirdness of factions being battlebrothers with themselves in the matrix.

The written rules were just copy-pasted with an explanation that this is how units from different factions treat eachother, then the matrix lists several factions as only battlebrothers with themselves while the choosing your forces rules state that you can take multiple detachments from the same faction.

They changed the way we choose armies and the matrix but left the old verbiage for how this all works.

If you try to apply the verbiage with different detachments of the same faction via the matrix you wind up with all units in the same detachment as battle brothers and no-one can start in a transport. If you try to apply just the written portion then the battle brothers for same faction means nothing outside Armies of the Imperium.

All that from an FAQ answer with no basis in the rules unless the answer was assuming Dedicated Transports(which, by the context of the answer, seems to be the case).

Well for "dedicated" transports the rule was already very clear in the rulebook. I thought the faq was specifically shutting down the Flesh Tearers drop-pod shuttle service - which this is similar to.

I'm not sure there is an official answer to this question.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Well for "dedicated" transports the rule was already very clear in the rulebook. I thought the faq was specifically shutting down the Flesh Tearers drop-pod shuttle service - which this is similar to.

I'm not sure there is an official answer to this question.

Well, are Flesh Tearer's the same faction as Blood Angels? If they are, they can use Blood Angel Drop Pods. If they're not, then they can't use Blood Angel Drop Pods. Battle Brothers can embark upon a Battle Brother's transports during the game, but they can't start the game inside each other's transports. That's what the FAQ so far has stated.

Well I don't really care about Flesh Tearers per se, just making the point about the faq ruling.

But I'm talking definitely the same 'Faction' (Blood Angels for both) but from different books and detachments... can they start/deploy in each other's transport (drop-pod specifically).

I can't find any place where this is addressed, and the closest is the faq... which would make me think, no?

 Gunzhard wrote:
Well I don't really care about Flesh Tearers per se, just making the point about the faq ruling.

But I'm talking definitely the same 'Faction' (Blood Angels for both) but from different books and detachments... can they start/deploy in each other's transport (drop-pod specifically).

I can't find any place where this is addressed, and the closest is the faq... which would make me think, no?

If they're the same Faction, and they're both from the same army, they can start in each other's transports. This is because the rules for using the Allies Matrix has nothing to do with detachments, it just has to do with models from different Factions. Check the rulebook and the section describing how to use the Ally Matrix, and you'll see this spelt out that it applies when you have models in the same army from different Factions. It specifies "army", not "detachment". All detachments in your army are still part of your army. So, if you're using multiple detachments in your army, and they're all from the same Faction, they can embark in each other's transports.

The only time you couldn't embark into a transport from the same Faction is if they're not from the same Army. For example, if you're playing with Blood Angels against Blood Angels, you cannot embark upon your opponent's transports (even though they are a model from the same Faction).

The rules for Allies never mentions detachments as being anything different.

And again Yarium; it is a Copy-Paste of the Text from 6th; the edition where your army could only consist of 2 detachments: the standard that we now know as a CAD, and an Allied.

The text also makes the matrix nonsensical.

The Matrix is not just a pretty little picture like the wrong examples in vehicle fire arcs; it is actual rules. In this case we have conflicting rules.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And again Yarium; it is a Copy-Paste of the Text from 6th; the edition where your army could only consist of 2 detachments: the standard that we now know as a CAD, and an Allied.

The text also makes the matrix nonsensical.

The Matrix is not just a pretty little picture like the wrong examples in vehicle fire arcs; it is actual rules. In this case we have conflicting rules.

Well, whether or not it's copy-pasta, it's still what the rule is unless a future FAQ says otherwise (as they have already done!). Of course, you and a friend can decide otherwise if people have strong feelings about this.

Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire...

As I just said: the rules are contradictory.

Same faction is battlebrothers but the allies rules only dictate relations between different factions.

Therefore the rules do not function.

Then we have the Q and A:
Q: Can units that are battle brothers embark in each other's transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Now the way that is worded it can only mean Dedicated transports. It is asking if 2 units can swap their transports, transports are units unto themselves.

For the FAQ to say what most people think it says it would read as follows:
Can a unit be deployed inside of a battle brothers transport?

I agree the rules are contradictory. That's why I asked for clarification on their Facebook page when the draft FAQ that disallowed units from starting in a Battle Brother's transport dropped. Hopefully we'll see it clarified in the final FAQ.

Oh boy, based on that faq I'm having doubts.

Hey Ghaz can you ask my question please? I don't have Facebook.

They just put up the Grey Knights FAQ which actually does have a better wording on this situation.

The question is regarding the nemesis strike force rites of teleportation rule and if they benefit from the reserves when riding in an allied drop pod. The answer is that units may not begin the game in allied transports.

So yes; they really are meaning any allied transports, not just DTs(and this is one of the few answers that they stuck with in this round of FAQs). I guess they really are not intending for loaner drop pods to any force.

Well ok can you just take 2 detachments without one being an "allied" detachment? ...or 2 formations without a detachment? ...this gak has gotten so confusing!

Specifically can I have "Baal Strike Force" detachment and an "Archangels Strike Force" detachment? ...I know one must be the primary but does that automatically make the other an "allied detachment?

You cant ally with yourself.
its simply just the same army with different two or five different detachments.

Like my raven wing strike force, my lions blade strike force, my scout cad, are all formations that consist of "successor chapter dark angels" they are not allied, they are not battle brothers they are the same chapter, in some cases parts of the same company in different formations.

My lions blade consists of the full 5th company of the chapter and has 2 Ravenwing attack squadrons from 2nd company attached to it.

My ravenwing strike force is a detachment, made up of guys from the 2nd company.

The lions blade formation has a detachment of a hammer of caliban with a land raider redeemer crewed by a tech marine with his servitors, there is still room for 6 models (or 7 if the servoharness dont count as 2) . i played a game with azrael, ezekiel, 2 librarians, 1 chaplain all from assorted detachments and formations inside the redeemer.

Bottom line, if its the same chapter its the same army reguardless of all the other details.

GW's ruling is obviously not what was intended, as all of the Stormraven formations cannot start with passengers, which defeats the purpose behind transport formations.

The only reason behind their ruling has to be an attempt at balancing, even if the attempt goes against their written rules.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GW's ruling is obviously not what was intended, as all of the Stormraven formations cannot start with passengers, which defeats the purpose behind transport formations.

The only reason behind their ruling has to be an attempt at balancing, even if the attempt goes against their written rules.

SJ

More specifically, it is adding an exception to the written rule that does not currently exist anywhere BUT the Draft FAQs.

The Storm Raven Formations carrying units is fine, provided they are from the same codex as the units they are carrying. Its when they are from different codices that is when the drunken monkeys take over.

If you cannot ally with yourself, then why are Tau Battle Brothers with Tau?

ssisal wrote:You cant ally with yourself.
its simply just the same army with different two or five different detachments.

Kommissar Kel wrote:If you cannot ally with yourself, then why are Tau Battle Brothers with Tau?

The confusion here is that "you can't ally with yourself" means "you cannot take an Allied Detachment with the same Faction as your Primary Detachment" AND that an "Allied Detachment" is a very SPECIFIC kind of detachment. Specifically, it's at least 1 HQ and 1 Troop choice, with another 0-1 of every other Battlefield Role, except Troops, which are 1-3, and Lords of War, which are 0.

Aside from that, through game verbiage, no other detachment is an "allied detachment" - they're just other detachments, possibly made up of other Factions. IF they're made from other Factions, the interactions between models that have different Factions are governed by the Allies Matrix, making them "allies" of each other.



Gunzhard; your Baal Strike Force and Archangels Strike Force are not allied detachments, they're just additional "detachments", and that's it. Since they're from the same Faction, and are present in the same army, they can indeed use each other's transports. They are NOT allies, since the Allies Matrix is not being used to determine the interactions between them.

Kommissar Kel, I know you've been around here long enough to know the answer to this . They're Battle Brothers with each other so that if you play a game with another player as allies, your two units aren't worried about stabbing each other in the back and keeping one eye open. In this case, you're the same Faction, yes, but you're from a different Army. This means the Allies Matrix applies. This also means you can't start the game embarked in each other's transports.

 Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GW's ruling is obviously not what was intended, as all of the Stormraven formations cannot start with passengers, which defeats the purpose behind transport formations.

The only reason behind their ruling has to be an attempt at balancing, even if the attempt goes against their written rules.

SJ

More specifically, it is adding an exception to the written rule that does not currently exist anywhere BUT the Draft FAQs.

The Storm Raven Formations carrying units is fine, provided they are from the same codex as the units they are carrying. Its when they are from different codices that is when the drunken monkeys take over.

Factions are Battle Brothers with themselves. Per the BRB, Battle Brothers can be deployed in each other's non-dedicted transports. The GW ruling needs clarification as it specifically prohibits Battle Brothers from deploying in each other's transports. Without an errata or further clarification, different detachments of the same faction are still Battle Brothers and therefore cannot deploy in each other's transports. That is the reason why their ruling breaks their own rules and is causing issues.

SJ

WHat permission are you using to use the Allies matrix?

You are not dealing with units from different factions, so which rule are you using to allow you to reference the chart?

Page and graph.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WHat permission are you using to use the Allies matrix?

You are not dealing with units from different factions, so which rule are you using to allow you to reference the chart?

Page and graph.

I gotta say, this is probably the answer. The Allies matrix specifically states it is used when dealing with a different FACTION, not DETACHMENT.
Therefore, this is an non-issue when using the same faction

-

So, Yarium; are you saying that the Allies rules do not come into play when you are using CADs from 2 different factions and not using the Allied Detachment?

I ask this because your quote from Ssisal does not indicat "Allied Detachments" at all, he simply makes reference of 2-5 detachments.


Nos; So you are saying the Matrix is only relevant when you have 2 or more detachments from multiple different Factions, but then at that point all same-faction units become Battle Brothers and no-one can start the game in a transport. Is that correct?

My point is none of the written rules work with the matrix and the FAQ rule-change-from-no-where.

But then you only use the matrix to tell you how the units from the detachments of *different* factions act with one another. The detachments of same factions do not suddenly become battle brother status with each other, because they're still the same faction, so you don't even look at the allies matrix when determining things between them.

So if the matrix only accounts for different factions, then why have all factions bb with themselves?

And, no Yarium, it is not for team play; the allies rules and matrix are both discussing how the units in the same army interact.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So, Yarium; are you saying that the Allies rules do not come into play when you are using CADs from 2 different factions and not using the Allied Detachment?

I ask this because your quote from Ssisal does not indicat "Allied Detachments" at all, he simply makes reference of 2-5 detachments.


Nos; So you are saying the Matrix is only relevant when you have 2 or more detachments from multiple different Factions, but then at that point all same-faction units become Battle Brothers and no-one can start the game in a transport. Is that correct?

My point is none of the written rules work with the matrix and the FAQ rule-change-from-no-where.

I think he's saying that "Detachments" are entirely irrelevant to fielding Allies (forces of different 'factions') and the rules that govern fielding Allies... so you could have 2 CADs (of different factions) or a CAD and an Allied-detachment... it doesn't matter. But if each has a different faction then you refer to the Matrix to learn how they 'interact' with each other.

Here is a quote from the rulebook I found: "Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other." ..."The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army."

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So if the matrix only accounts for different factions, then why have all factions bb with themselves?

If you're not using it when they're the same faction, you never look at it to see they're bb anyway. GW could just have easily blacked out those boxes, or put a big X in each one, and I honestly believe if that were the case, some people would say "That means they can't ally with themselves, you can only have detachment from a given faction." I see your point, but as others have pointed out before in other threads, they made a matrix, and something had to go in those boxes.

BossJakadakk wrote:
If you're not using it when they're the same faction, you never look at it to see they're bb anyway. GW could just have easily blacked out those boxes...

Which is how it was in the previous edition, so why did they change it?

 Ghaz wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
If you're not using it when they're the same faction, you never look at it to see they're bb anyway. GW could just have easily blacked out those boxes...

Which is how it was in the previous edition, so why did they change it?

Idk, does it matter? You still disregard it if you're looking at how units of the same faction interact. In both editions, it means nothing at all. I get that it's weird, but there doesn't have to be meaning for it. The paragraph above still says you're using the matrix just when determining how units from different factions interact. It could say BA to BA is happy fluffy bunnies but you'll never need to know what happy fluffy bunnies means.

 Ghaz wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
If you're not using it when they're the same faction, you never look at it to see they're bb anyway. GW could just have easily blacked out those boxes...

Which is how it was in the previous edition, so why did they change it?

I think the simple answer is "Armies of the Imperium". ...had they listed each Imperial Army out separately it would make sense to black out the boxes.

Doing it this way - you can have armies of different 'Factions' (which means you need to consult the Matrix) - and still easily understand where all Imperial armies stand at least. They're not the same 'Faction' but they are Battle Bros... etc.

This also leaves room for future 'Factions' like Deathwatch.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
If you're not using it when they're the same faction, you never look at it to see they're bb anyway. GW could just have easily blacked out those boxes...

Which is how it was in the previous edition, so why did they change it?

Idk, does it matter? You still disregard it if you're looking at how units of the same faction interact. In both editions, it means nothing at all. I get that it's weird, but there doesn't have to be meaning for it. The paragraph above still says you're using the matrix just when determining how units from different factions interact. It could say BA to BA is happy fluffy bunnies but you'll never need to know what happy fluffy bunnies means.

Unless you want us to believe that they made a change to the chart for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then yes it does matter. For example, why make the chart show that Eldar are Battle Brothers with Eldar if they're not Battle Brothers? Just stating it 'doesn't matter' doesn't cut it.

 Ghaz wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
If you're not using it when they're the same faction, you never look at it to see they're bb anyway. GW could just have easily blacked out those boxes...

Which is how it was in the previous edition, so why did they change it?

Idk, does it matter? You still disregard it if you're looking at how units of the same faction interact. In both editions, it means nothing at all. I get that it's weird, but there doesn't have to be meaning for it. The paragraph above still says you're using the matrix just when determining how units from different factions interact. It could say BA to BA is happy fluffy bunnies but you'll never need to know what happy fluffy bunnies means.

Unless you want us to believe that they made a change to the chart for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then yes it does matter. For example, why make the chart show that Eldar are Battle Brothers with Eldar if they're not Battle Brothers? Just stating it 'doesn't matter' doesn't cut it.

That's pretty close to what I want you to believe, it's what I believe, it's not unbelievable. They decided against black boxes this time. Eldar can be battle brothers with Eldar on the matrix all they want, but you're not treating them as "battle brothers" because they are the same faction, so you're treating them as the same faction, because you have no reason to be looking at the ally matrix at all, as they do not have different factions. IOW, "it doesn't matter" cuts it just fine IMO

So you're just going to handwave away an inconsistency between the written rules and the matrix as being inconsequential. Yeah, I think we're done here if you're not willing to support your claims and instead just ignore anything that contradicts it.

This has been a part of my point since pretty much when 7th came out, and why I always considered the matrix as unit interaction between detachments(and until this FAQ random rule change; it didn't matter): they copy-pasted the written rules from 6th edition, then completely re-did the matrix and associated levels of alliance rules.

The written rules were written for a Time when you could only have 2 detachments: standard and allied. Allied could never be the same faction as your standard which also had to have your warlord(which had to be an HQ Character).

The rest of the army selection rules have now changed; and those written rules no longer function properly.

Well first, EVERY edition of 40K has had glaring inconsistencies... primarily why we are always eagerly awaiting FAQ - that said:

The Allies section of the rules, having just reread them have NOTHING to do with detachments... just dealing with how armies of different 'Factions' interact with each other - regardless of how you build the list and regardless of what sort of detachments you choose.

As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

Could this ALL have been done better? ...this is 40K and the answer is yes.

 Ghaz wrote:
So you're just going to handwave away an inconsistency between the written rules and the matrix as being inconsequential. Yeah, I think we're done here if you're not willing to support your claims and instead just ignore anything that contradicts it.

If you want. We're basically rehashing an argument that has been done repeatedly in the past. The written rules say to use the matrix when determining how units with different factions interact. Ergo, you don't use the matrix when determining how units with the *same* faction interact. I'm not certain of the inconsistency I'm handwaving away. We're only told to even look at the thing if units have different factions. To reiterate someone else's point, that's "units" and not even "detachments." In the case of two BA detachments, the ally matrix would never be referenced. The words that are on the page beat out the fact that a picture exists. I'm not ignoring anything, I'm doing what the rules tell me to. Granted they don't explicitly say to not use the matrix if units are the same faction, but they only tell you it even exists to see how units from different factions interact. It says nothing about same-faction units, and since it doesn't tell to reference the chart for same-faction units, I don't.

I see your guys' side. I'm open-minded and will admit I'm wrong if they say it becomes detachment-dependent. I just won't play it that way until they do. Handwave away my (and others') interpretation all you want. Be done here all you want. It doesn't make your reading the end-all be-all.

 Gunzhard wrote:
As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

And every other non-IoM Faction could have been blacked out on the 7th edition Matrix, so that doesn't really explain why they're listed as Battle Brothers.

 Gunzhard wrote:


I think the simple answer is "Armies of the Imperium". ...had they listed each Imperial Army out separately it would make sense to black out the boxes.

Doing it this way - you can have armies of different 'Factions' (which means you need to consult the Matrix) - and still easily understand where all Imperial armies stand at least. They're not the same 'Faction' but they are Battle Bros... etc.

This also leaves room for future 'Factions' like Deathwatch.

I think this is it as well. Even though the chart has "Eldar" being BBs with "Eldar" the fact that 2 detachments of Eldar are the same faction means we don't bother treating them as Allies. Faction A with Faction A are not Allies, but the same Faction. Faction A with Faction B are Allies, consult the chart.

GW made everyone BBs with themselves for 2 reasons: 1) so they could pile all Imperials together and 2) because GW thought it looks prettier than having dead space.
Although I wish they had done as Ghaz suggested and blanked out all non-IoM armies

-

 Ghaz wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

And every other non-IoM Faction could have been blacked out on the 7th edition Matrix, so that doesn't really explain why they're listed as Battle Brothers.

It's like you've never read any GW rules before haha... but seriously - when this book hit it seems pretty clear they wanted "Battle Bros" to be treated as if they were the same 'faction' - the description of Battle Brothers is worth reading - then people abused the Flesh Tearers Drop-Pod taxi and just finally - now - they decided to change that. So effectively - it "Didn't matter" - until now, when it actually does. They could have left it like that (battle bros icons) for consistency sake, and again, because of Armies of the Imperium - and who knows maybe some future Choas 'Faction' etc.

This way leaves an opening for future Factions.

I think you're being intentionally rigid when no actually GW rule source has ever been rigid. I also agree, it would be nicer if they'd used your concept.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So, Yarium; are you saying that the Allies rules do not come into play when you are using CADs from 2 different factions and not using the Allied Detachment?

Not at all. Allies certainly come into play there, but NOT because you have two CADs. They come into play because you have models from two different factions. Remember, it's possible to have models from multiple factions within the same detachment! (The Skitarii/Knight/Mechanicus formation, for example)

It's also possible to have models that don't belong to any detachments (due to being Unbound)! If the rules only cover what happens between detachments, how do you govern what happens between a Tyranid Zoanthrope and a Tau Broadside when they're 1" from each other in an Unbound army?

Just remember, the rules on allies references MODELS not DETACHMENTS, and you'll be fine! As such, since both the Blood Angels and the Blood Angels drop pods are the SAME Faction in the SAME army, you can have them embarked on each other even if they're from different detachments.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

And every other non-IoM Faction could have been blacked out on the 7th edition Matrix, so that doesn't really explain why they're listed as Battle Brothers.

From a graphics point of view they may have not blacked things out simply for visual aesthetics. This kind of thing is done all the time. If you have pictures and print you arrange things and use content that is pleasing to the eye. I think you are fixating on the black boxes in the previous edition too much.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Factions are Battle Brothers with themselves. Per the BRB, Battle Brothers can be deployed in each other's non-dedicted transports. The GW ruling needs clarification as it specifically prohibits Battle Brothers from deploying in each other's transports. Without an errata or further clarification, different detachments of the same faction are still Battle Brothers and therefore cannot deploy in each other's transports. That is the reason why their ruling breaks their own rules and is causing issues.

No... that is not the case because of:

Gunzhard wrote:"Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other." ..."The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army."

If they are the same Faction, then they are not accessing the Ally rules any more than Grimnar is accessing the Bike or Monstrous Cavalry rules, they simply do not apply. It is only when they are from different Factions, not Detachments, do the Ally rules come in to play.

Ghaz wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

And every other non-IoM Faction could have been blacked out on the 7th edition Matrix, so that doesn't really explain why they're listed as Battle Brothers.

I can think of one big case for this with two words: Genestealer Cults. When it was written, Genestealer Cults were a different Faction from Tyranids, but still used their chart. By placing this setup as is, they allowed new Factions with close ties to an existing one.

It didn't help that they continued a trend to contradict written rules at least once in a Draft FAQ to state otherwise with the Genestealer Cults, but that still doesn't dismiss the use of the in this manner.

Charistoph, you always find the best BRB quotes. thumbs up!

 Charistoph wrote:

I can think of one big case for this with two words: Genestealer Cults. When it was written, Genestealer Cults were a different Faction from Tyranids, but still used their chart. By placing this setup as is, they allowed new Factions with close ties to an existing one.

It didn't help that they continued a trend to contradict written rules at least once in a Draft FAQ to state otherwise with the Genestealer Cults, but that still doesn't dismiss the use of the in this manner.

I was just about to make the same point. It was to future-proof the game against minor factions like that, and I believe the 6th edition codex supplements were worded the same as well - they are different factions that occupy the same spot on the chart.

Ultimately, the rules only tell you to reference the chart if the units (not even Detachments, but units) have different factions. It doesn't matter if the chart has pointless information, you don't look at it until you have units in the same army that have a different Faction.

Now, I also think the FAQ answer is rubbish - it's not even remotely suggested in the rules that units can't start in allied transports, so it should have been an erratum. But if it helps to tone down super friends lists, then I'm happy.

 Cheexsta wrote:

Now, I also think the FAQ answer is rubbish - it's not even remotely suggested in the rules that units can't start in allied transports, so it should have been an erratum. But if it helps to tone down super friends lists, then I'm happy.

From Yarium in another thread:

 Yarium wrote:
The rules actually only say that Battle Brothers can embark in each other's transports, which means they are performing the in-game action of being on the table, and then getting into the transport, not starting the game already "embarked".

So from that point of view, it isn't only "remotely suggested that units can't start in allied transports", but flat out was never allowed in the first place.
BRB says BBs can "embark in" not that they can "deploy in"
Meaning that the FAQ is not a change, but a clarification.

-

I don't really get into the depths of RAW versus RAI arguments, but the way I look at this is that you can start the game in the vehicle from a different detachment as long as it's your faction. I would cite formations like the Ork blitz brigade to further my RAI claim. It's 5 battlewagons that gain scout. It gives specific rules for units that embark on them. The detachment itself is 100% incapable of bringing any units to embark on them. Same goes for the space marine land raider spearhead fornation.

The blitz brigade is for 7th edition and I wouldn't say it's outdated. Now granted it's pre- FAQ and errata so it's not concrete proof of anything, but I think it gives a solid basis for RAI

Combined Reserve Units
During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must arrive together. Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case, when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character/Transport vehicle.

I marked the part that the new ruling effects.

SJ

 Galef wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

Now, I also think the FAQ answer is rubbish - it's not even remotely suggested in the rules that units can't start in allied transports, so it should have been an erratum. But if it helps to tone down super friends lists, then I'm happy.

From Yarium in another thread:

 Yarium wrote:
The rules actually only say that Battle Brothers can embark in each other's transports, which means they are performing the in-game action of being on the table, and then getting into the transport, not starting the game already "embarked".

So from that point of view, it isn't only "remotely suggested that units can't start in allied transports", but flat out was never allowed in the first place.
BRB says BBs can "embark in" not that they can "deploy in"
Meaning that the FAQ is not a change, but a clarification.

Not true. For one, "deploy in" can only mean to "embark" otherwise, the only way you can get out of a Vehicle is if it Explodes. Even leaving a Wreck involves Disembarking. So, either "deploy in" means "embark" or your unit is trapped for most of the game.

On the other end, the FAQ is changing the rules, not clarifying as this is what is written in Battle Brothers:

Units from the same army that are Battle Brothers treat each other as ‘friendly units’ for all rules purposes. This means, for example, that units:

Everything listed after that is not an exhaustive list, but merely examples as it states. Too which I would then ask, "Can friendly units embark in Transports during deployment?" If Grey Knights cannot Embark on to Drop Pods, then neither can Ultramarines Embark on to Fast Attack Drop Pods from an Ultramarine detachment. This is clearly not the case, otherwise Storm Ravens would not be able to fly with anything Embarked, either, even from the same detachment (they are not Dedicated Transports). It would also be meaningless to make a point that Dedicated Transports can only have the unit they were purchased with start the game Embarked on them.

So, yeah, it is a change, and it is stupid not putting it in an Errata but rather as an FAQ House Rule.

 Cheexsta wrote:

Not true. For one, "deploy in" can only mean to "embark" otherwise, the only way you can get out of a Vehicle is if it Explodes. Even leaving a Wreck involves Disembarking. So, either "deploy in" means "embark" or your unit is trapped for most of the game.

Embark in clearly written as an action that takes place during the movement phase as per the BRB.
IMHO "Deploy Inside" it's closer to being "embarked" which is a state, not an action.

I don't see why you could not voluntarily disembark as per the BRB so long as legally allowed to embark via the Allies matrix (qualifications: battle brothers and during the movement phase)

 Brillow80 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Not true. For one, "deploy in" can only mean to "embark" otherwise, the only way you can get out of a Vehicle is if it Explodes. Even leaving a Wreck involves Disembarking. So, either "deploy in" means "embark" or your unit is trapped for most of the game.

Embark in clearly written as an action that takes place during the movement phase as per the BRB.
IMHO "Deploy Inside" it's closer to being "embarked" which is a state, not an action.

I don't see why you could not voluntarily disembark as per the BRB so long as legally allowed to embark via the Allies matrix (qualifications: battle brothers and during the movement phase)

Fixed the quote for ya.

The part you cut out was trying to indicate a difference between "deployed in" and "embarked". This doesn't work, though, because of this, the very first passage of Disembarking in the Transport rules:

Disembarking
A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6".

Basically, if you are not embarked (the past tense of "embark" or "embarking"), you cannot disembark. Disembarking can be done voluntarily or involuntarily if the Vehicle is Wrecked. The unit is not disembarked if the Vehicle Explodes, however, but goes through a slightly different process which does not include the term "disembark".

Deploying a unit in a vehicle circumvents the embarking process (which you cannot do outside of the movement phase). Rather than embarking the unit onto the vehicle, deploying a unit in a vehicle puts the unit directly in a state of 'embarked upon' the vehicle.







The player has the ability to assign the status 'embarked upon' this or that vehicle while sorting out reserves. But no actual embarking takes place. That would require a movement phase.

So now you are trying to claim that Come the Apocalypse units can begin the game embarked?

Yeah this took a strange turn...

Not really; it is the logical progression when people want to ignore context and expect the rules to be written with exact verbiage.

There is a reason that the term "rules-lawyer" is pejorative; the rules are never written to the exacting standards of law.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Yeah this took a strange turn...

Indeed.

The BRB tells us that Battle Brothers can embark on each other's transports as if they were the same faction, and that while in reserves the player can decide which units are embarked on which transports including combined units. The draft FAQ has repeated pointed out that no, GW did not mean for us to embark Battle Brothers in other's transports while in reserve, especially combined to units. Hince threads like this in multiple forums.

SJ

I think it just goes to show that GW is very lax in writing it's intent. According to the FAQ, it seems that BBs were never intended to be able to start the game in a different factions transports. The same can be said for grenades only being 1 per unit during assault.

Hopefully the draft FAQs with be incorporated into 8th ed.

 Galef wrote:
I think it just goes to show that GW is very lax in writing it's intent. According to the FAQ, it seems that BBs were never intended to be able to start the game in a different factions transports. The same can be said for grenades only being 1 per unit during assault.

Hopefully the draft FAQs with be incorporated into 8th ed.

I disagree... according to the rulebook it seems very clear that BBs were very much intended to be able to start the game in a different (BB) factions transport. It's only - now - after glaring abuse (the Flesh Tearers taxi service) that they realize that was a mistake.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Not really; it is the logical progression when people want to ignore context and expect the rules to be written with exact verbiage.

There is a reason that the term "rules-lawyer" is pejorative; the rules are never written to the exacting standards of law.

Oh I do agree... but we are not even on topic anymore.

 Gunzhard wrote:
I disagree... according to the rulebook it seems very clear that BBs were very much intended to be able to start the game in a different (BB) factions transport. It's only - now - after glaring abuse (the Flesh Tearers taxi service) that they realize that was a mistake.

Well, there's enough ambiguity in the rulebook's use of terms and words that what is Intended is not necessarily clear. I have a feeling that the "taxi service" thing isn't what they were worried about, but rather that it made no sense that a unit of Guardsmen could survive the deployment process, but that is entirely a matter of personal opinion.

What I am looking forward to is that with GW returning to the older style of White Dwarf and being more interactive with their customer base than before, it will be easier to determine what they intended or not. If a White Dwarf comes out with a Battle Report where they state something as happening, and no one thought this to be the case, it'll turn a lot of heads and show us some of a rule's intention.

col_impact wrote:
Deploying a unit in a vehicle circumvents the embarking process (which you cannot do outside of the movement phase). Rather than embarking the unit onto the vehicle, deploying a unit in a vehicle puts the unit directly in a state of 'embarked upon' the vehicle.

Yes, and no.

For clarity, it circumvents the actual Movement Phase requirements and timing, but that is all it circumvents. It does not circumvent the other restrictions that come with embarking, such as unit type and size. To do more is to add to the rules without permission, or the alternative is to disconnect the "deploy in" from "embarking" completely which leads to problems with disembarking I have already addressed.

 Yarium wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
I disagree... according to the rulebook it seems very clear that BBs were very much intended to be able to start the game in a different (BB) factions transport. It's only - now - after glaring abuse (the Flesh Tearers taxi service) that they realize that was a mistake.

Well, there's enough ambiguity in the rulebook's use of terms and words that what is Intended is not necessarily clear. I have a feeling that the "taxi service" thing isn't what they were worried about, but rather that it made no sense that a unit of Guardsmen could survive the deployment process, but that is entirely a matter of personal opinion.

What I am looking forward to is that with GW returning to the older style of White Dwarf and being more interactive with their customer base than before, it will be easier to determine what they intended or not. If a White Dwarf comes out with a Battle Report where they state something as happening, and no one thought this to be the case, it'll turn a lot of heads and show us some of a rule's intention.

Ambiguity, ...in 40k?!? ...you don't say! ...still I think regarding this one issue of Battle Bros and transports they 'were' pretty clear. As to their sudden change of heart - yeah who knows really. GW has never seemed to fully grasp how crazy this community can get - I think situations like "guardsmen in drop-pods" or the Flesh-Tearers taxi-service always catches them by surprise.

I am also looking forward to the new WD, I've already pre-ordered!

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So now you are trying to claim that Come the Apocalypse units can begin the game embarked?

Not at all.

The rules that prevent Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the Apocalypse allies from embarking on your main faction's transports are these . . .





If not for those rules then Come the Apocalypse allies could embark on to the main faction's transports.

The broad permission to designate a unit as embarked upon a transport is provided in the rules on Deployment and Reserves






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Deploying a unit in a vehicle circumvents the embarking process (which you cannot do outside of the movement phase). Rather than embarking the unit onto the vehicle, deploying a unit in a vehicle puts the unit directly in a state of 'embarked upon' the vehicle.

Yes, and no.

For clarity, it circumvents the actual Movement Phase requirements and timing, but that is all it circumvents. It does not circumvent the other restrictions that come with embarking, such as unit type and size. To do more is to add to the rules without permission, or the alternative is to disconnect the "deploy in" from "embarking" completely which leads to problems with disembarking I have already addressed.

The embarking process is sidestepped entirely unless you can show how you get a movement phase during deployment. You have to adhere to the game provided definition of embarking and you are not allowed to make up any connections between 'deploy in' and 'embarking' that are simply not there in the rules.

But don't worry, Transport Capacity restrictions are applied while the unit is being deployed in the transport per this rule.

col_impact wrote:
The embarking process is sidestepped entirely unless you can show how you get a movement phase during deployment. You have to adhere to the game provided definition of embarking and you are not allowed to make up any connections between 'deploy in' and 'embarking' that are simply not there in the rules.

But don't worry, Transport Capacity restrictions are applied while the unit is being deployed in the transport per this rule.

Spoiler:

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

The process is skipped, yes, but "embarked" is still the past tense form of "embark" or "embarking". So, if one is "embarked" then one has did "embarking" in the past. And keep in mind that the Transport Capacity rules also use the term "embarked" as well. Such considerations are always in place, which was my point.

But hey, one can get around that if one thinks that "carry" does not mean "having such embarked on", too which goes back to the problems I identified earlier.

But that still doesn't explain where in your preferred form of eternal punishment that GW got the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to a Transport during Deployment, which is what got this conversation started.

col_impact wrote:

The player has the ability to assign the status 'embarked upon' this or that vehicle while sorting out reserves. But no actual embarking takes place. That would require a movement phase.

Well, there is a quote that doesn't cover vehicles in reserve, but does cover ones on the board. Page 132 in the main rulebook:

"Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in teir deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity". So, they have permission to deploy inside (i.e. embark) into a vehicle) that's on the board.

Of course, there's a side issue of this that now occurs to me. An allied faction couldn't be deployed into a fortification from a battle brother, since embarking and disembarking from a building works the same as for embarking and disembarking from a vehicle. For that matter, it could be argued that a building that's on the board that's unclaimed isn't the same faction as any of your units, so even if you had one of those in your deployment zone at the beginning of the game you wouldn't be able to deploy any units in it.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The embarking process is sidestepped entirely unless you can show how you get a movement phase during deployment. You have to adhere to the game provided definition of embarking and you are not allowed to make up any connections between 'deploy in' and 'embarking' that are simply not there in the rules.

But don't worry, Transport Capacity restrictions are applied while the unit is being deployed in the transport per this rule.

Spoiler:

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

The process is skipped, yes, but "embarked" is still the past tense form of "embark" or "embarking". So, if one is "embarked" then one has did "embarking" in the past. And keep in mind that the Transport Capacity rules also use the term "embarked" as well. Such considerations are always in place, which was my point.

You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:


But that still doesn't explain where in your preferred form of eternal punishment that GW got the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to a Transport during Deployment, which is what got this conversation started.

The Draft FAQ has inserted a distinction between permission to be embarked upon a transport during deployment and the permission to embark upon a transport in a movement phase.

The distinction wasn't there before the Draft FAQ but it is possible to make a distinction. This was done to nerf Battle Brothers.

col_impact wrote:


You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.

Actually, for transports on the board, it states you may be deployed (present tense, not past "may have been deployed") into a transport during the deployment stage, so during the deployment step you treat those as embarking into the transports at that time.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.

Actually, for transports on the board, it states you may be deployed (present tense, not past "may have been deployed") into a transport during the deployment stage, so during the deployment step you treat those as embarking into the transports at that time.

Where does it say that you treat 'deployed in' as 'embarking in'? You are reading in to the rules. Please stick to the rules as they are written.

This is the definition of Embarking. It has nothing to do with deployment.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.

Actually, for transports on the board, it states you may be deployed (present tense, not past "may have been deployed") into a transport during the deployment stage, so during the deployment step you treat those as embarking into the transports at that time.

Where does it say that you treat 'deployed in' as 'embarking in'? You are reading in to the rules. Please stick to the rules as they are written.

This is the definition of Embarking. It has nothing to do with deployment.

Spoiler:

Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should be taken as normal. The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

If deploying is different than embarking, then we have other problems. It's the rules for embarking that say an entire unit must be embarked if any part of the unit is embarked. If deploying is different, that limitation is not activated, and you could have a unit partially deployed inside the transport and partially outside the transport.

EDIT: Also, the embarking rules give you the example that you cannot embark on a Rhino or Razorback if you are in Terminator armor. If deploying is different than embarking, then I guess it's okay?

 doctortom wrote:


If deploying is different than embarking, then we have other problems. It's the rules for embarking that say an entire unit must be embarked if any part of the unit is embarked. If deploying is different, that limitation is not activated, and you could have a unit partially deployed inside the transport and partially outside the transport.

EDIT: Also, the embarking rules give you the example that you cannot embark on a Rhino or Razorback if you are in Terminator armor. If deploying is different than embarking, then I guess it's okay?

Do you see some other definition for Embarking than the one I have provided? If you do, please share. Otherwise we need to stick with the definitions and rule we have.


The Deployment rules reference the Transport Capacity and the Transport capacity of the Rhino reads thusly . . .

I attempted to post this earlier but Dakka went down for maintenance.

Col_Impact: an embarked unit is never moving within 1" of the transport. The unit is not moving at all, and is not even on the table.

The same new FAQs that restrict Battle Brothers from beginning the game embarked also states that the embarked unit does not interact with anything on the table other than shooting out of fire points(or no escape on an open-topped transport)

col_impact wrote:You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.

Actually you do when that involves other things related to or uses conjugations of those words in cooperation with their rules. And I have already addressed this very topic, as it is right before you came in. Can you demonstrate where a temporal conjugation is completely separated from other temporal conjugation forms of this word? I cannot. So separating "embarked" from "embarking" is ridiculous and rather incompetent without written evidence to support it.

The game does not "literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport ". If you want to quibble about how you are not to use words not in the rulebook, do not do so yourself.

The game literally states that "Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles". Deployed is an action term used in several points of the game to indicate when a unit is placed on the table such as Moving On From Reserves and Deep Strike.

There is more, but it is better addressed later.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
But that still doesn't explain where in your preferred form of eternal punishment that GW got the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to a Transport during Deployment, which is what got this conversation started.

The Draft FAQ has inserted a distinction between permission to be embarked upon a transport during deployment and the permission to embark upon a transport in a movement phase.

The distinction wasn't there before the Draft FAQ but it is possible to make a distinction. This was done to nerf Battle Brothers.

That's not the point. The FAQ is to be answering the intentions of the company and developers. That means that they NEVER intended for it to be allowed to embark on Battle Brother Transports before this Draft FAQ. If it was an actual print error, this would be in Errata.

So, I will state again, since it is not in Errata and you do not pay attention, where in this current rulebook did you find the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to Transports when there is a specific line that allows them to do so?

col_impact wrote:Do you see some other definition for Embarking than the one I have provided? If you do, please share. Otherwise we need to stick with the definitions and rule we have.

The Deployment rules reference the Transport Capacity and the Transport capacity of the Rhino reads thusly . . .

Spoiler:

Transport Capacity: Ten models. It cannot carry models with the Bulky, Very Bulky or Extremely Bulky special rules.

Now, I come back to the part which I talked about earlier.

Either "embarked" means "having gone through embarking at a previous point" as a past tense conjugation implies, or it means something else. If you can provide another definition, then do so.

The term "carry" is used in Transport Capacity and other places, but never defined. With Transports, we can only assume this means "embarked" as any other meaning creates some serious problems which I will go in to later.

The term "deploy inside" is used during Deployment, but again, never defined further. In this case, we can only assume this also means "embarked" as any other meaning creates those same problems.

The problem with considering "carry" or "deployed inside" as not associated with "embarked" or "embarking" comes along when you go to Disembark. Disembarking can only be performed by models which are "embarked", if you want the quote, look at an earlier post in this thread where I went over this before or just look up the very first paragraph of Disembarking. This means that if the Transport is just "carrying" the unit or the unit was just "deployed inside" the Transport without being "embarked" (the past tense of "embarking", remember), they cannot get out unless the Transport literally Explodes! If a Transport is Wrecked, the unit is to disembark. If the Transport Explodes!, the unit is placed where the Transport was after it is removed.

TL;DR: Do not try and rules-lawyer a separation between "embarked", "embarking, "carry", or "deploy in" or I can rules-lawyer it even harder for your units to even get out of the Transport. Some leeway is needed and proper cross connections between terms needs to be used, even if not properly defined, otherwise the game breaks and no one has a fun game.

The rules allow you to place a unit in an "embarked upon" state in a Transport while skipping altogether the process of Embarking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

That's not the point. The FAQ is to be answering the intentions of the company and developers. That means that they NEVER intended for it to be allowed to embark on Battle Brother Transports before this Draft FAQ. If it was an actual print error, this would be in Errata.

So, I will state again, since it is not in Errata and you do not pay attention, where in this current rulebook did you find the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to Transports when there is a specific line that allows them to do so?

Do you have an official statement from GW that states that any rule changes must be errata'd? If so please share. If not, this is just an assumption on your part (and a bad one at that).

Also, I have nowhere said that the BRB makes it so BBs are not allowed to embark on friendly Transports. In fact, I have said that the BRB provides broad permission to put units into Transports is granted in the rules for Deployment and Reserves.

I have said that the Draft FAQ is what is now restricting the BBs from embarking upon friendly Transports during deployment.

col_impact wrote:
The rules allow you to place a unit in an "embarked upon" state in a Transport while skipping altogether the process of Embarking.

Do you have a rules quote on that? I am quite sure you are making it up, otherwise. Where does it state you are allowed to ignore the aspects of Embarking when placing a unit in an "embarked" state?

col_impact wrote:
Do you have an official statement from GW that states that any rule changes must be errata'd? If so please share. If not, this is just an assumption on your part (and a bad one at that).

Also, I have nowhere said that the BRB makes it so BBs are not allowed to embark on friendly Transports. In fact, I have said that the BRB provides broad permission to put units into Transports is granted in the rules for Deployment and Reserves.

I have said that the Draft FAQ is what is now restricting the BBs from embarking upon friendly Transports during deployment.

Do you have an official statement from GW that states the FAQ represents an official rules change? All the time before that these documents have been released, any official rules changes have been listed under Errata headings, while FAQs are their own House Rules. This has been posted on their site as such for quite some time till relatively recently. So, yeah, it is THEIR word on it. Not to mention, it is a standard convention in the environment to make actual changes to how a rule works as an errata.

And you were attempting to answer the question I made in a rhetorical sense. If you choose to respond to it, then answer the question properly.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


If deploying is different than embarking, then we have other problems. It's the rules for embarking that say an entire unit must be embarked if any part of the unit is embarked. If deploying is different, that limitation is not activated, and you could have a unit partially deployed inside the transport and partially outside the transport.

EDIT: Also, the embarking rules give you the example that you cannot embark on a Rhino or Razorback if you are in Terminator armor. If deploying is different than embarking, then I guess it's okay?

Do you see some other definition for Embarking than the one I have provided? If you do, please share. Otherwise we need to stick with the definitions and rule we have.


The Deployment rules reference the Transport Capacity and the Transport capacity of the Rhino reads thusly . . .

Spoiler:

Transport Capacity: Ten models. It cannot carry models with the Bulky, Very Bulky or Extremely Bulky special rules.

EDIT: Charistoph, that's a very good point about disembarking. They can't disembark if they haven't embarked in the transport in the first place. If they're in the transport without having embarked, they have no rules for disembarking (unless there's a special pysker rule or something like that the unit can use - they can't get out using normal disembarking methods if you go by the logic they're not embarking or embarked when deployed into the vehicle).

So you're oikay with deploying a unit half in and half out of a transport, since that is only defined by when they embark, and you claim that deployment has no relation to embarking?

col_impact wrote:
That's not the point. The FAQ is to be answering the intentions of the company and developers. That means that they NEVER intended for it to be allowed to embark on Battle Brother Transports before this Draft FAQ. If it was an actual print error, this would be in Errata.

So you're okay with no unit ever getting to deploy in an unoccupied neutral building in their deployment zone, since they're treated like vehicles in respect to people inside, and by definition an unclaimed building would not be the same faction as the unit you're deploying?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules allow you to place a unit in an "embarked upon" state in a Transport while skipping altogether the process of Embarking.

Do you have a rules quote on that? I am quite sure you are making it up, otherwise. Where does it state you are allowed to ignore the aspects of Embarking when placing a unit in an "embarked" state?

Embarking is a process that only happens during the movement phase. Apparently, I am the only one who is going to adhere to what the rules actually say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Do you have an official statement from GW that states that any rule changes must be errata'd? If so please share. If not, this is just an assumption on your part (and a bad one at that).

Also, I have nowhere said that the BRB makes it so BBs are not allowed to embark on friendly Transports. In fact, I have said that the BRB provides broad permission to put units into Transports is granted in the rules for Deployment and Reserves.

I have said that the Draft FAQ is what is now restricting the BBs from embarking upon friendly Transports during deployment.

Do you have an official statement from GW that states the FAQ represents an official rules change? All the time before that these documents have been released, any official rules changes have been listed under Errata headings, while FAQs are their own House Rules. This has been posted on their site as such for quite some time till relatively recently. So, yeah, it is THEIR word on it. Not to mention, it is a standard convention in the environment to make actual changes to how a rule works as an errata.

And you were attempting to answer the question I made in a rhetorical sense. If you choose to respond to it, then answer the question properly.

So you were unable to support what you claimed with an official statement. Got it.

You guys are arguing a moot point anyway - who cares?

The original question has been resolved regardless of whatever you guys are claiming or not claiming...

They are way off topic but the original question was never satisfactorily resolved.

We still have the issue that the written rules on alliances don't match the rest of the rules nor does any of it well explain multiple factions.

Prior to the FAQ the new levels of Alliances(the written for battle brothers, desparate allies, allies of convenience, and come the apocalypse) rules, which are explaining the symbols on the new matrix, worked perfectly as unit interaction between detachments as well.

This new FAQ makes the matrix and the written rules nonsensical to the point where we are left with 1 of 2 options:

1) the matrix lists battle brothers that cannot exist.

2) the matrix is right, but is now the relationship between all units in an army; which means no unit can deploy in any transport.

There is sort of a 3, treat each detachment as having a matrix-relationship with any other detachment(meaning you cannot take a gladius battle company for free Razorbacks then place the tac squads in FA drop pods from a CAD)

col_impact wrote:
Embarking is a process that only happens during the movement phase. Apparently, I am the only one who is going to adhere to what the rules actually say.

Maybe if you actually read what was written, you would actually understand what is being said and not take us off in to random tangents.

While the actual Movement Phase process is allowed to be skipped during Deployment for sake of speed and brevity, the restrictions for doing so and the classification of the results are still in play. Otherwise, you place yourself in to a position of being able to violate rules during deployment that you could not do in game OR place the units in a position that they cannot leave the Transport without it Exploding.

Remember, we are not told to separate the relationship between "embarked" and "embarking" that exists.

To tie this back in to the OP, again, the standards which would disallow any Battle Brother (that would otherwise qualify) from boarding a Transport during deployment would be the same standards which would also disallow any unit from the same codex or detachment (that would otherwise qualfiy) from boarding a Transport during Deployment.

Again, Battle Brothers reads as such:

Units from the same army that are Battle Brothers treat each other as ‘friendly units’ for all rules purposes.

A list of EXAMPLES (and not an exhaustive one) follows, which allows Embarking in Transports. So if Battle Brothers cannot embark during deployment, neither can Blood Angels getting on to a Blood Angels Storm Raven, Codex Devastators in a Codex Fast Attack Drop Pod, etc., even if they are in the same Detachment. They are all 'friendly units' to each other for all rules purposes.

This is a ridiculous concept, of course and denies what is allowed in the Deployment section, Dedicated Transport sidebars, or Preparing Reserves section.

col_impact wrote:
So you were unable to support what you claimed with an official statement. Got it.

More than you have, actually. I have precedent on my side. You just have an assumption that these FAQs make changes to the rules.

Of course, the current live documents list it as this:

Each update is split into three sections: Amendments, Errata and 'Frequently Asked Questions'. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the rulebook, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked QUestions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly asked questions about the rules.

So corrections of the rules are in the Errata. Changes are in the Amendments. FAQs are just how they would answer the situation.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Embarking is a process that only happens during the movement phase. Apparently, I am the only one who is going to adhere to what the rules actually say.

Maybe if you actually read what was written, you would actually understand what is being said and not take us off in to random tangents.

While the actual Movement Phase process is allowed to be skipped during Deployment for sake of speed and brevity, the restrictions for doing so and the classification of the results are still in play. Otherwise, you place yourself in to a position of being able to violate rules during deployment that you could not do in game OR place the units in a position that they cannot leave the Transport without it Exploding.

The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
They are way off topic but the original question was never satisfactorily resolved.

We still have the issue that the written rules on alliances don't match the rest of the rules nor does any of it well explain multiple factions.

Prior to the FAQ the new levels of Alliances(the written for battle brothers, desparate allies, allies of convenience, and come the apocalypse) rules, which are explaining the symbols on the new matrix, worked perfectly as unit interaction between detachments as well.

This new FAQ makes the matrix and the written rules nonsensical to the point where we are left with 1 of 2 options:

1) the matrix lists battle brothers that cannot exist.

2) the matrix is right, but is now the relationship between all units in an army; which means no unit can deploy in any transport.

There is sort of a 3, treat each detachment as having a matrix-relationship with any other detachment(meaning you cannot take a gladius battle company for free Razorbacks then place the tac squads in FA drop pods from a CAD)

No the original question was certainly explained. While the levels of Alliances may have "worked perfectly as unit interaction between detachments as well" - it really had nothing to do with detachments and specifically mentioned that your method of list-building is entirely irrelevant. The only time you ever refer to the "Allies" rules was when dealing with "models from different factions", period. Detachments or formations have nothing to do with this...

All of this embark, dissembark nonsense doesn't change that at all.

col_impact wrote:
The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

If you sidestep the Embarking process altogether, then they are not embarked. The actual Movement Phase and positions are not used, but everything else, of which Transport Capacity is a portion, is applied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
All of this embark, dissembark nonsense doesn't change that at all.

It goes in to WHY this ruling is being made. Col_impact believes that since since "embarking" is specifically addressed as being allowed for Battle Brothers, they cannot be allowed outside of doing an active "embarking process". I do believe that being considered "embarked" means that the "embarking process" has already been attended to outside of those basic parameters. And so the definition of what "embarked" means and entails is what lead to our discussion. Realistically speaking, the definition of "embarked" and to its timing is relatively meaningless over all to this discussion. It is a red herring that some people use to justify other things, like ignoring the Transport Capacity rules to get Praetorians on a Night Scythe.

That is because it carries less weight than an hydrogen atom in this discussion since that is only an example of what Battle Brothers can do. And if you are going to limit Battle Brothers, then you would be limiting any unit from going on to a Transport for the exact same reason without actually changing the rules by which Battle Brothers operate from.

Battle Brothers are treated as "friendly units". One of those things that are allowed to friendly units is embarking on a Transport. Now, you can either define "deploying in" or being "counted as embarked" as not embarking and that is the reason for this FAQ. Another reason claimed is for balance, but no reason is actually written for the answer to this question. That doesn't really matter since they didn't actually change the Battle Brother rules so it makes this whole situation a hot mess.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

If you sidestep the Embarking process altogether, then they are not embarked. The actual Movement Phase and positions are not used, but everything else, of which Transport Capacity is a portion, is applied.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants. Spontaneously the unit is "embarked upon" the Transport circumventing any Embarking process. The Embarking process can only occur in a movement phase, remember? So unless you can point to a rule that says otherwise, all you have is your unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. I will stick to the rules we have.

Trying to decipher "WHY the ruling is made" is a pointless quest, with a pointless outcome.

What does it matter? ...and further, no matter how much you guys think you can glean the design intent from the rules or FAQ we'll still never actually know unless they tell us - and it still won't change anything.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

If you sidestep the Embarking process altogether, then they are not embarked. The actual Movement Phase and positions are not used, but everything else, of which Transport Capacity is a portion, is applied.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants. Spontaneously the unit is "embarked upon" the Transport circumventing any Embarking process. The Embarking process can only occur in a movement phase, remember? So unless you can point to a rule that says otherwise, all you have is your unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. I will stick to the rules we have.

So you believe you can ignore everything regarding embarking when you can just declare a unit embarked? Doing so would get you no games from me. Keep batting away at that red herring.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants, no argument. But you have yet to demonstrate where the game logic creates a disconnect between "embarked" and "embarking" is made to justify your position. My position is that the timing and placement of such is hand-waved for game setup, and that is it, so it does not disconnect the temporal conjugation of the words. The "movement phase" for doing so is performed, fluff-wise/story-wise when the army is preparing to move out and engage the enemy, be it on ship for Drop Pods or a staging area for Rhinos and Trukks. This is done for the sake of smooth gameplay and setup, nothing more.

Or in other words, I am using the game logic provided in the print of the book to make these statements.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Trying to decipher "WHY the ruling is made" is a pointless quest, with a pointless outcome.

What does it matter? ...and further, no matter how much you guys think you can glean the design intent from the rules or FAQ we'll still never actually know unless they tell us - and it still won't change anything.

For future rules parsing and connecting rules interactions.

Why cannot a Battle Brother, who is a "friendly unit", not be embarked on a Transport when actual friendly units can?

Either no friendly unit can be embarked on a Transport during deployment, or they all can. If they all can, then Battle Brothers can be embarked on a Transport during deployment. If not, then getting any unit in to a Drop Pod/Rhino/Trukk that is not Dedicated to them is equally impossible, even from the same detachment.

It also either makes a lie of the allowance to have units embarked on a Transport in Reserves or Deployment, or when a unit is deployed in a Transport they are not embarked so cannot get off unless it receives an Explodes! result.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

If you sidestep the Embarking process altogether, then they are not embarked. The actual Movement Phase and positions are not used, but everything else, of which Transport Capacity is a portion, is applied.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants. Spontaneously the unit is "embarked upon" the Transport circumventing any Embarking process. The Embarking process can only occur in a movement phase, remember? So unless you can point to a rule that says otherwise, all you have is your unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. I will stick to the rules we have.

So you believe you can ignore everything regarding embarking when you can just declare a unit embarked? Doing so would get you no games from me. Keep batting away at that red herring.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants, no argument. But you have yet to demonstrate where the game logic creates a disconnect between "embarked" and "embarking" is made to justify your position. My position is that the timing and placement of such is hand-waved for game setup, and that is it, so it does not disconnect the temporal conjugation of the words. The "movement phase" for doing so is performed, fluff-wise/story-wise when the army is preparing to move out and engage the enemy, be it on ship for Drop Pods or a staging area for Rhinos and Trukks. This is done for the sake of smooth gameplay and setup, nothing more.

Or in other words, I am using the game logic provided in the print of the book to make these statements.

I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

col_impact wrote:

I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

You never answered my question:

"So you're okay with no unit ever getting to deploy in an unoccupied neutral building in their deployment zone, since they're treated like vehicles in respect to people inside, and by definition an unclaimed building would not be the same faction as the unit you're deploying? "

Sticking to the Rules of the Game as stated, you would have to allow this, which indicates that your interpretation just causes further messes that need to be fixed.

col_impact wrote:
I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

You mean you will stick to your fantasy view of the rules of the game and of English and try to demean anyone who thinks differently.

If you have an actual quote to counter what I have stated, then provide it. The "fluff/story-wise" thing is actually part of the game logic now called "Forging the Narrative". It is used to hand-wave those things which would not otherwise make sense in the real world, such as a unit being embarked at the start of the game without actual doing all the fine details of embarking. It is considered having been done and not ignored in all respects.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

You never answered my question:

"So you're okay with no unit ever getting to deploy in an unoccupied neutral building in their deployment zone, since they're treated like vehicles in respect to people inside, and by definition an unclaimed building would not be the same faction as the unit you're deploying? "

Sticking to the Rules of the Game as stated, you would have to allow this, which indicates that your interpretation just causes further messes that need to be fixed.

I have no where stated that a unit needs to be in the same Faction as as something it deploys in. The rules provide broad permission for a unit to deploy 'inside' a building.

I have said that units cannot deploy inside Transports that they are Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, or Comes the Apocalypse Allies with. That kind of alliance imposes proximity restrictions that preclude deployment.

Buildings have no Faction and thus do not participate in the Allies chart.

So there is nothing to worry about the slippery slope you think you see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

You mean you will stick to your fantasy view of the rules of the game and of English and try to demean anyone who thinks differently.

If you have an actual quote to counter what I have stated, then provide it. The "fluff/story-wise" thing is actually part of the game logic now called "Forging the Narrative". It is used to hand-wave those things which would not otherwise make sense in the real world, such as a unit being embarked at the start of the game without actual doing all the fine details of embarking. It is considered having been done and not ignored in all respects.

Inappropriate argument for this forum.

col_impact wrote:
I have no where stated that a unit needs to be in the same Faction as as something it deploys in. The rules provide broad permission for a unit to deploy 'inside' a building.

Yet, the rules state that you follow the rules for transports. "The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them.

col_impact wrote:
Buildings have no Faction and thus do not participate in the Allies chart.

Not necessarliy true. Fortifications are buildings and can be bought by one side, that is treated as the faction that bought it as part of their detachment that includes the fortification. Allies couldn't deploy into that. Not having a faction means it's not the same faction as a building that's claimed.

col_impact wrote:
ISo there is nothing to worry about the slippery slope you think you see.

Well, there's still that pesky "The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside" rule that applies when embarking, but doesn't apply during deployment if deployment doesn't count as embarking. Still a bit of a slippery slope there.

 doctortom wrote:


Not necessarliy true. Fortifications are buildings and can be bought by one side, that is treated as the faction that bought it as part of their detachment that includes the fortification. Allies couldn't deploy into that. Not having a faction means it's not the same faction as a building that's claimed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


Well, there's still that pesky "The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside" rule that applies when embarking, but doesn't apply during deployment if deployment doesn't count as embarking. Still a bit of a slippery slope there.

The rules give permission to deploy inside Transports and Buildings, not inside and outside.

OK, so are we agreed that per the BRB, there is permission and no restriction on units using a BB allied transport; however, per the DraFtAQ, there is a restriction?

If so, I'm confused as to what all this arguing is about.

I am pointing out that the Draft FAQ writers are keying in on the difference between the Embarked upon state that is designated during Deployment and the Embarking process that happens once the game starts.

Wait so why can't, say, Desperate Allies deploy inside a transport according to this interpretation?

It can't be proximity, because the Draft FAQ says that you do not measure for such things when a unit is inside a transport.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so why can't, say, Desperate Allies deploy inside a transport according to this interpretation?

It can't be proximity, because the Draft FAQ says that you do not measure for such things when a unit is inside a transport.

The Draft FAQ says you can't start the game in "allied Transports". It's not saying Allied Detachment, it's talking about all allies no matter the quality of their alliance. So, no deploying Desperate Allies or Come the Apocaplyse allies in a transport at the start of a game. No sticking Tyranid infantry inside a Land Raider at the start of a game. That's even if you treat deployment into transports as separate from embarking, since desperate allies and Come the Apocalypse don't have permission to embark on those allies' transports in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


Well, there's still that pesky "The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside" rule that applies when embarking, but doesn't apply during deployment if deployment doesn't count as embarking. Still a bit of a slippery slope there.

The rules give permission to deploy inside Transports and Buildings, not inside and outside.

The rules give permission to deploy in your deployment zone. They also give you permission to deploy inside transports and buildings. You already have permission for both if you don't treat deployment into a transport as embarking.


Also, speaking of pesky things, there's still the thing Charistoph pointed out that if you don't embark when you deploy inside a vehicle, you can't voluntarily disembark because you don't count as being embarked (since there's nothing to define your status as being embarked unless you actually embark)

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

You mean you will stick to your fantasy view of the rules of the game and of English and try to demean anyone who thinks differently.

If you have an actual quote to counter what I have stated, then provide it. The "fluff/story-wise" thing is actually part of the game logic now called "Forging the Narrative". It is used to hand-wave those things which would not otherwise make sense in the real world, such as a unit being embarked at the start of the game without actual doing all the fine details of embarking. It is considered having been done and not ignored in all respects.

Inappropriate argument for this forum.

Spoiler:

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

I wasn't using an inappropriate argument. Actually READ what I wrote again. I was referring to things like this in the BRB's Introduction:

Forging a Narrative
Throughout this book, you will see boxed out text entitled ‘Forging a Narrative’. These boxes contain advice on how to make your gaming experience even more enjoyable, and revolve around evoking the imagery and feel of the 41st Millennium. At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between fellow hobbyists – and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for all players as possible. If you stick to the advice offered in these boxes, you can’t really go far wrong!

I was using the rulebook's own statements as ways to justify enforcing the tenets of embarking when one goes to classify a unit as embarked without using the temporal and placing embarking usually requires. This is "forging the narrative" that embarking would have been accomplished back at the staging area/ship to bring them to the location so they are in the Transport at the time the fight/game starts.

col_impact wrote:I am pointing out that the Draft FAQ writers are keying in on the difference between the Embarked upon state that is designated during Deployment and the Embarking process that happens once the game starts.

And I am telling you that is a red herring since what applies to Battle Brothers also applies to those who are not accessing the Ally rules. The Draft FAQ is not keying in on anything in the rulebook. They are attempting to change the rule without an Errata.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Wait so why can't, say, Desperate Allies deploy inside a transport according to this interpretation?

It can't be proximity, because the Draft FAQ says that you do not measure for such things when a unit is inside a transport.

Desperate Allies are "enemy units", not "friendly units". Your Transport's Desperate Allies cannot start the game embarked in it any more than your opponent's units can start the game embarked in it.

Unit1126PLL was saying the same thing that I was, and it is poking the hole in Impact's logic: if the deploying in "embarked upon state" as he puts it forgoes the actual process of embarking, and he is trying to say that there is some difference in the 2; then any unit that is not a battle brother(as the FAQ only denies them) can be deployed in said state in the transport vehicle.

I had used Come the Apocalypse units in my example as it is the furthest thing from battle brothers, but any of them count. Also as I had pointed out quite some time ago; the same FAQ declares that units embarked upon transports are not considered to be on the table for anything other than using the fire points, so moving within and deployment range restrictions will never and cannot apply while they are embarked(but also means that they cannot disembark).

Also, yes Impact, the tenet does not apply as Christoph was using a quote from the rulebook, not a real-world situation. Unless you are trying to apply it as the real-world situation of actually following the rule book; which considering the entirety of your argument, seems likely.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit1126PLL was saying the same thing that I was, and it is poking the hole in Impact's logic: if the deploying in "embarked upon state" as he puts it forgoes the actual process of embarking, and he is trying to say that there is some difference in the 2; then any unit that is not a battle brother(as the FAQ only denies them) can be deployed in said state in the transport vehicle.

I had used Come the Apocalypse units in my example as it is the furthest thing from battle brothers, but any of them count. Also as I had pointed out quite some time ago; the same FAQ declares that units embarked upon transports are not considered to be on the table for anything other than using the fire points, so moving within and deployment range restrictions will never and cannot apply while they are embarked(but also means that they cannot disembark).

Also, yes Impact, the tenet does not apply as Christoph was using a quote from the rulebook, not a real-world situation. Unless you are trying to apply it as the real-world situation of actually following the rule book; which considering the entirety of your argument, seems likely.

The rules that prevent Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the Apocalypse allies from embarking on your main faction's transports are these . . .





If not for those rules then Come the Apocalypse allies could embark on to the main faction's transports.

When you measure the distance between the vehicle hull (for the vehicle) and the vehicle hull (for the unit in the 'embarked upon' state) you get zero inches. Only Battle Brothers can be within 0" of one another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so why can't, say, Desperate Allies deploy inside a transport according to this interpretation?

It can't be proximity, because the Draft FAQ says that you do not measure for such things when a unit is inside a transport.

The Draft FAQ is referring to unit special rules. The Ally rules are not unit special rules.

Yes, I replied to those same statements several pages back after I first brought it up.

I also included exactly why neither of those rules apply again in the post you quoted.

But here we go again:

Cannot move within 1": Embarked unit is not moving, also not on the table in order to measure distance to.

Cannot be deployed within 12": Embarked unit is once again, not on the table to be measured to.

And you last statement has no rules basis(at least not since the FAQ declared all embarked units completely not on the table).

Edit: sorry, I missed your reply to Unit.

The FAQ question asks about Special Rules; The answer, however, declares embarked units complete non-entities that do not interact with anything on the battlefield unless a special rule specifies that it is effective while Embarked.

You should try reading the bits you are posting about ad nauseum.

col_impact wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit1126PLL was saying the same thing that I was, and it is poking the hole in Impact's logic: if the deploying in "embarked upon state" as he puts it forgoes the actual process of embarking, and he is trying to say that there is some difference in the 2; then any unit that is not a battle brother(as the FAQ only denies them) can be deployed in said state in the transport vehicle.

I had used Come the Apocalypse units in my example as it is the furthest thing from battle brothers, but any of them count. Also as I had pointed out quite some time ago; the same FAQ declares that units embarked upon transports are not considered to be on the table for anything other than using the fire points, so moving within and deployment range restrictions will never and cannot apply while they are embarked(but also means that they cannot disembark).

Also, yes Impact, the tenet does not apply as Christoph was using a quote from the rulebook, not a real-world situation. Unless you are trying to apply it as the real-world situation of actually following the rule book; which considering the entirety of your argument, seems likely.

The rules that prevent Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the Apocalypse allies from embarking on your main faction's transports are these . . .

Spoiler:

Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies
Cannot move with 1" of an Allies of Convenience model.

Spoiler:

Come the Apocalypse
Units that will only ally ‘Come the Apocalypse’ are treated exactly like Desperate Allies, but cannot deploy within 12” of each other when they are deploying for battle.

If not for those rules then Come the Apocalypse allies could embark on to the main faction's transports.

When you measure the distance between the vehicle hull (for the vehicle) and the vehicle hull (for the unit in the 'embarked upon' state) you get zero inches. Only Battle Brothers can be within 0" of one another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so why can't, say, Desperate Allies deploy inside a transport according to this interpretation?

It can't be proximity, because the Draft FAQ says that you do not measure for such things when a unit is inside a transport.

The Draft FAQ is referring to unit special rules. The Ally rules are not unit special rules.

Wait a minute, why are you talking about the rules that prevent a unit from embarking on a transport when you say that embarking is not the same thing as deployment? The Desperate Allies rule about having to be at least 12" away would cover not doing it with Desperate Allies, but that quote for Allies of Convenience doesn't matter since deployment doesn't count as moving - they end up in the transport without moving. As I pointed out above, the statment that you can't board allied transports is the statement that covers it all - it's referring to all alliances, not just Battle Brothers, or just to Allied Detachments.


EDIT: Kommissar Kel - as I pointed out above, it's the FAQ itself preventing deploying in any Allied transport, no matter what the level of alliance. Unless, of course, deploying into a transport counts as embarking into the unit.

col_impact wrote:
The rules that prevent Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the Apocalypse allies from embarking on your main faction's transports are these . . .

Spoiler:

Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies
Cannot move with 1" of an Allies of Convenience model.

Spoiler:

Come the Apocalypse
Units that will only ally ‘Come the Apocalypse’ are treated exactly like Desperate Allies, but cannot deploy within 12” of each other when they are deploying for battle.

If not for those rules then Come the Apocalypse allies could embark on to the main faction's transports.

When you measure the distance between the vehicle hull (for the vehicle) and the vehicle hull (for the unit in the 'embarked upon' state) you get zero inches. Only Battle Brothers can be within 0" of one another.

You are providing a double standard here. First you say the reason the Battle Brothers cannot be embarked during deployment is because they are allowed to go through the embarking process but not be embarked, but everything you just quoted involves the embarking process.

Make up your mind. Be consistent.

DoctorTom:
First off, the FAQ only says battle brothers may not deploy in allied transports(obviously the other levels of alliance cannot be deployed therein because they cannot embark at all)

Second, for the 3rd time, I am illustrating the absurdity of Impact's assertion that deploying in a transport, whether during deployment or in reserves, is not embaking into the transport but instead merely applying an "embarked upon state" means that non-battle brothers can use that same logic to deploy in said state within allied transports with no regard to the denials normally placed on them.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules that prevent Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the Apocalypse allies from embarking on your main faction's transports are these . . .

Spoiler:

Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies
Cannot move with 1" of an Allies of Convenience model.

Spoiler:

Come the Apocalypse
Units that will only ally ‘Come the Apocalypse’ are treated exactly like Desperate Allies, but cannot deploy within 12” of each other when they are deploying for battle.

If not for those rules then Come the Apocalypse allies could embark on to the main faction's transports.

When you measure the distance between the vehicle hull (for the vehicle) and the vehicle hull (for the unit in the 'embarked upon' state) you get zero inches. Only Battle Brothers can be within 0" of one another.

You are providing a double standard here. First you say the reason the Battle Brothers cannot be embarked during deployment is because they are allowed to go through the embarking process but not be embarked, but everything you just quoted involves the embarking process.


Make up your mind. Be consistent.

No double standard. I am adhering to exactly what the rules say (and no more).

The rules allow you to designate units as 'embarked upon' Transports while forbidding the Embarking process from occuring during any portion of the game outside of the movement phase.

Them's the rules and I apply the singular standard of obeying the rules.


As I have indicated earlier in this thread . . .

The broad permission to designate a unit as embarked upon a transport is provided in the rules on Deployment and Reserves









Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
DoctorTom:
First off, the FAQ only says battle brothers may not deploy in allied transports(obviously the other levels of alliance cannot be deployed therein because they cannot embark at all)

Second, for the 3rd time, I am illustrating the absurdity of Impact's assertion that deploying in a transport, whether during deployment or in reserves, is not embaking into the transport but instead merely applying an "embarked upon state" means that non-battle brothers can use that same logic to deploy in said state within allied transports with no regard to the denials normally placed on them.

You are the one ignoring the rule that restricts Embarking to the movement phase.


Shall we just hand-wave that restriction away because it offends you?

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules that prevent Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the Apocalypse allies from embarking on your main faction's transports are these . . .

Spoiler:

Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies
Cannot move with 1" of an Allies of Convenience model.

Spoiler:

Come the Apocalypse
Units that will only ally ‘Come the Apocalypse’ are treated exactly like Desperate Allies, but cannot deploy within 12” of each other when they are deploying for battle.

If not for those rules then Come the Apocalypse allies could embark on to the main faction's transports.

When you measure the distance between the vehicle hull (for the vehicle) and the vehicle hull (for the unit in the 'embarked upon' state) you get zero inches. Only Battle Brothers can be within 0" of one another.

You are providing a double standard here. First you say the reason the Battle Brothers cannot be embarked during deployment is because they are allowed to go through the embarking process but not be embarked, but everything you just quoted involves the embarking process.


Make up your mind. Be consistent.

No double standard. I am adhering to exactly what the rules say (and no more).

The rules allow you to designate units as 'embarked upon' Transports while forbidding the Embarking process from occuring during any portion of the game outside of the movement phase.

Them's the rules and I apply the singular standard of obeying the rules.


As I have indicated earlier in this thread . . .

The broad permission to designate a unit as embarked upon a transport is provided in the rules on Deployment and Reserves

Spoiler:

Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity

Spoiler:

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
DoctorTom:
First off, the FAQ only says battle brothers may not deploy in allied transports(obviously the other levels of alliance cannot be deployed therein because they cannot embark at all)

Second, for the 3rd time, I am illustrating the absurdity of Impact's assertion that deploying in a transport, whether during deployment or in reserves, is not embaking into the transport but instead merely applying an "embarked upon state" means that non-battle brothers can use that same logic to deploy in said state within allied transports with no regard to the denials normally placed on them.

You are the one ignoring the rule that restricts Embarking to the movement phase.

Spoiler:

Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase

Shall we just hand-wave that restriction away because it offends you?

If you want to quote a rule that restricts embarking to the movement phase; you might want to quote the correct rule: "Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the movement phase."

So if you are going to quote a restriction make sure you are quoting a restriction, not just a statement about how a thing is done.

But then we have the deployment and reserves rules that both specifically allow that restriction to be broken.

I also find it funny how you are talking about enemy units not allowed to move within 1", but you only need to get within 2" to embark. And, no, nowhere in the transport rules is there any statement that only friendly models may embark.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


But then we have the deployment and reserves rules that both specifically allow that restriction to be broken.

Where do you see in the deployment and reserve rules that Embarking is being permitted.

I only see permission to designate a unit as "embarked upon" a Transport, which circumvents the Embarking process entirely.

That's the way the rules add up here.

col_impact wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


But then we have the deployment and reserves rules that both specifically allow that restriction to be broken.

Where do you see in the deployment and reserve rules that Embarking is being permitted.

I only see permission to designate a unit as "embarked upon" a Transport, which circumvents the Embarking process entirely.

That's the way the rules add up here.

And again we get to your claim of some "embarked upon state" which allows for all the points I made earlier that you "refuted" via the Embarking rules.

So which is it?

Can I deploy one of my units in the embarked upon state into one of your empty transports?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


But then we have the deployment and reserves rules that both specifically allow that restriction to be broken.

Where do you see in the deployment and reserve rules that Embarking is being permitted.

I only see permission to designate a unit as "embarked upon" a Transport, which circumvents the Embarking process entirely.

That's the way the rules add up here.

And again we get to your claim of some "embarked upon state" which allows for all the points I made earlier that you "refuted" via the Embarking rules.

So which is it?

Can I deploy one of my units in the embarked upon state into one of your empty transports?

Only if you broadly allow your units to embark into an unoccupied Stompa controlled by your opponent and once therein wreck havok internally.

There is a hole in the rules that allow you to embark upon your enemy's unoccupied transports in the movement phase since the rules only require a unit and a Transport and does not specify 'from your army'. But that's not a hole that comes as a result of my line of argumentation. That's a hole in the rules that is entirely independent of my argument.

There is an unstated convention that disallows that. But no written rule disallows that.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
DoctorTom:
First off, the FAQ only says battle brothers may not deploy in allied transports(obviously the other levels of alliance cannot be deployed therein because they cannot embark at all)

Actually the Grey Knights FAQ on the first page of this thread states "You can't start the game embarked in allied Transports" - that one wasn't differentiating between Battle Brothers and other allies

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Second, for the 3rd time, I am illustrating the absurdity of Impact's assertion that deploying in a transport, whether during deployment or in reserves, is not embaking into the transport but instead merely applying an "embarked upon state" means that non-battle brothers can use that same logic to deploy in said state within allied transports with no regard to the denials normally placed on them.

I had just been pointing out some other rules that would disallow the deploying/embarking. Arguing that deploying doesn't count as embarking or having embarked, though, is ignoring the FAQ where it says "Start the game embarked in an allied Transport" , meaning being deployed in a transport also means they are embarked into the transport If they're embarked, them getting in the transport would have been governed by the embarking rules at the time they embarked - which means according to the main rulebook, an allied IC could have been embarked in the transport - though the FAQ seems to want to shoot that down.

EDIT: Though it occurs to me now that they are tanswering a question about a unit starting the game embarked, not an IC joined to a unit. Of course, since col_impact treats an IC as a separate unit even when joined to another unit, he'd still apply the FAQ ruling. I don't have the main rulebook FAQ handy, did it refer to having an allied character joining a unit in their transport, or was it merely a response to a whole unit being deployed in an allied transport?

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules that prevent Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the Apocalypse allies from embarking on your main faction's transports are these . . .

Spoiler:

Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies
Cannot move with 1" of an Allies of Convenience model.

Spoiler:

Come the Apocalypse
Units that will only ally ‘Come the Apocalypse’ are treated exactly like Desperate Allies, but cannot deploy within 12” of each other when they are deploying for battle.

If not for those rules then Come the Apocalypse allies could embark on to the main faction's transports.

When you measure the distance between the vehicle hull (for the vehicle) and the vehicle hull (for the unit in the 'embarked upon' state) you get zero inches. Only Battle Brothers can be within 0" of one another.

You are providing a double standard here. First you say the reason the Battle Brothers cannot be embarked during deployment is because they are allowed to go through the embarking process but not be embarked, but everything you just quoted involves the embarking process.

Make up your mind. Be consistent.

No double standard. I am adhering to exactly what the rules say (and no more).

The rules allow you to designate units as 'embarked upon' Transports while forbidding the Embarking process from occuring during any portion of the game outside of the movement phase.

Them's the rules and I apply the singular standard of obeying the rules.


As I have indicated earlier in this thread . . .

The broad permission to designate a unit as embarked upon a transport is provided in the rules on Deployment and Reserves

Spoiler:

Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity

Spoiler:

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

No, you have contradicted yourself.

You have stated, or at least implied, that Battle Brothers cannot be embark during deployment since you cannot fulfill the requirements of embarking.

Yet, your very claim you have made twice as to why other Allies cannot Embark are all portions of the rules that are in place that would prevent Embarking as well.

So which is it? Are units denied embarking during deployment because of the embarking process restrictions or not?

Please provide credible and relevant quotes to support your statement.

Nope.

It's a pretty clear picture if we stick to the BRB and leave the Draft FAQ aside. The Draft FAQ has some contradictions to sort out. So let's sort out what exactly the BRB says.


1) Embarking does not happen during deployment/reserves since it's not a movement phase.

2) Broad permission is granted for the player to deploy his units 'inside' any Transport or to designate any unit as embarked upon a Transport in reserves. Both of these actions place the unit in an 'embarked upon/embarked on' state that skips the Embarking process (which is forbidden from occuring)

3) A player that attempts to deploy a unit inside a Transport that is enemy of that unit (ie an Ally worse than a Battle Brother) will prevent that Transport from moving, pivoting and the embarked unit will not be able to disembark (enemy models cannot move within 1" of another). Similarly, a unit that is designated 'embarked' upon an enemy Transport in Reserves prevents that Transport from arriving from reserves since the Transport cannot move within 1' of an enemy unit.


So while technically legal, starting the game 'embarked upon' an enemy Transport is a really bad pointless strategy.



There are lots of possibilities in 40k which wind up not happening because they wind up being bad for the player and then disallowed by convention.

It's technically allowed for you to start the game with your models stacked on top of one another. However, its a bad idea since stacking would immobilize both models. Only jump, jetpack, etc. type models could escape the immobilization.

There is no rule which requires you to start with your models in coherence either.

By convention players refrain from doing either so as not to engage in trolling behavior. But no written rule forbids it.

col_impact wrote:
It's a pretty clear picture if we stick to the BRB and leave the Draft FAQ aside. The Draft FAQ has some contradictions to sort out. So let's sort out what exactly the BRB says.

When changing direction it is good to have this in, for future reference, otherwise people will naturally assume it is along the same track.

col_impact wrote:

1) Embarking does not happen during deployment/reserves since it's not a movement phase.

In a literal sense, correct. In "Forging the Narrative", it is done either on ship or at staging area where movement is surely possible, just not tracked by game mechanics. Either way, a pointless point to pursue largely because of your second point.

col_impact wrote:
2) Broad permission is granted for the player to deploy his units 'inside' any Transport or to designate any unit as embarked upon a Transport in reserves. Both of these actions place the unit in an 'embarked upon/embarked on' state that skips the Embarking process (which is forbidden from occuring)

It is not forbidden from occurring, it is not just not permitted as a literal action. The difference is significant.

But the point should (and has repeatedly) be made that while the embarking process is skipped in terms of position and timing, the other standards that are which can be enforced (Transport Capacity, for example) cannot nor should not be ignored so there is no question of legality in .

col_impact wrote:
3) A player that attempts to deploy a unit inside a Transport that is enemy of that unit (ie an Ally worse than a Battle Brother) will prevent that Transport from moving, pivoting and the embarked unit will not be able to disembark (enemy models cannot move within 1" of another). Similarly, a unit that is designated 'embarked' upon an enemy Transport in Reserves prevents that Transport from arriving from reserves since the Transport cannot move within 1' of an enemy unit.

The biggest problem with this is how do you measure to a model that is not actually on the table?

 Charistoph wrote:

The biggest problem with this is how do you measure to a model that is not actually on the table?

The distance between a unit 'embarked upon' a Transport and the Transport itself is not surprisingly 0 inches.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The biggest problem with this is how do you measure to a model that is not actually on the table?

Spoiler:

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

The distance between a unit 'embarked upon' a Transport and the Transport itself is not surprisingly 0 inches.

Except that the very same set of Draft FAQs says that we do not consider this unless the rule specifically addresses a unit inside the Transport.

Either you can measure to it, and ignore the Draft FAQs which deny Battle Brothers being embarked on Transports during deployment, or you cannot measure to it and follow the Draft FAQs which deny Battle Brothers being embarked on Transports during deployment.

Either way, your argument is rendered pointless without deliberately picking and choosing which parts of the rules you are going to follow.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The biggest problem with this is how do you measure to a model that is not actually on the table?

Spoiler:

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

The distance between a unit 'embarked upon' a Transport and the Transport itself is not surprisingly 0 inches.

Except that the very same set of Draft FAQs says that we do not consider this unless the rule specifically addresses a unit inside the Transport.

Either you can measure to it, and ignore the Draft FAQs which deny Battle Brothers being embarked on Transports during deployment, or you cannot measure to it and follow the Draft FAQs which deny Battle Brothers being embarked on Transports during deployment.

Either way, your argument is rendered pointless without deliberately picking and choosing which parts of the rules you are going to follow.

Not exactly. For sure units embarked on enemy transports are prohibited from disembarking.



The Disembarking rules make it clear that you cannot disembark from an enemy Transport.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The biggest problem with this is how do you measure to a model that is not actually on the table?

Spoiler:

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

The distance between a unit 'embarked upon' a Transport and the Transport itself is not surprisingly 0 inches.

Except that the very same set of Draft FAQs says that we do not consider this unless the rule specifically addresses a unit inside the Transport.

Either you can measure to it, and ignore the Draft FAQs which deny Battle Brothers being embarked on Transports during deployment, or you cannot measure to it and follow the Draft FAQs which deny Battle Brothers being embarked on Transports during deployment.

Either way, your argument is rendered pointless without deliberately picking and choosing which parts of the rules you are going to follow.

Not exactly. For sure units embarked on enemy transports are prohibited from disembarking.

Spoiler:

Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method: place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model or within impassable terrain.

The Disembarking rules make it clear that you cannot disembark from an enemy Transport.

That's fine with me. Just stuff the Tyranids in Land Raiders and drive them down the opponent's throat. Either the opponent kills them, which means they get charged by a whole barrel of angries, or they don't, and they can't kill your army.

col_impact wrote:
Not exactly. For sure units embarked on enemy transports are prohibited from disembarking.

Spoiler:

Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method: place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model or within impassable terrain.

The Disembarking rules make it clear that you cannot disembark from an enemy Transport.

Seems like you could use Emergency Disembarkation just fine, though.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The biggest problem with this is how do you measure to a model that is not actually on the table?

Spoiler:

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

The distance between a unit 'embarked upon' a Transport and the Transport itself is not surprisingly 0 inches.

Except that the very same set of Draft FAQs says that we do not consider this unless the rule specifically addresses a unit inside the Transport.

Either you can measure to it, and ignore the Draft FAQs which deny Battle Brothers being embarked on Transports during deployment, or you cannot measure to it and follow the Draft FAQs which deny Battle Brothers being embarked on Transports during deployment.

Either way, your argument is rendered pointless without deliberately picking and choosing which parts of the rules you are going to follow.

Not exactly. For sure units embarked on enemy transports are prohibited from disembarking.

Spoiler:

Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method: place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model or within impassable terrain.

The Disembarking rules make it clear that you cannot disembark from an enemy Transport.

Christoph said nothing about disembarking; so, what point are you trying to make?

I am pretty sure I had mentiined that enemy units cannot disembark from a transport that they can embark(if I didn't, I meant to) several days ago.

Although, since firepoints still don't measure to the unit for any movement purposes; sticking one of your units in an enemy open topped vehicle means that you get to fire out of it and are safe from return fire for the rest of the game.

Mr. Shine: still cannot emergency disembark due to being placed against the enemy transport model's hull then moving away. Last line of Emergency disembark is that if even that cannot be done the unit simply cannot disembark.

col_impact wrote:
Not exactly. For sure units embarked on enemy transports are prohibited from disembarking.

Spoiler:

Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method: place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy model or within impassable terrain.

The Disembarking rules make it clear that you cannot disembark from an enemy Transport.

No, you are still setting up a contradiction or inconsistency in the rules for getting them IN TO the Transport as to WHY the Battle Brothers cannot and why other Allies cannot. We aren't talking about getting them out, yet.

Of course, as you pointed out we are still looking at a scenario much like getting in to a Transport without "embarking" (forge the narrative and use proper conjugation) in that getting out again is a problem. They can still get out of it, but it will require the Transport to Explode! in order to do so.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Mr. Shine: still cannot emergency disembark due to being placed against the enemy transport model's hull then moving away. Last line of Emergency disembark is that if even that cannot be done the unit simply cannot disembark.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, it's only if the vehicle's a wreck that they couldn't emergency disembark. If the vehicle explodes you follow the normal rules and put survivors in the crater of where the vehicle used to be, since there's no vehicle left to measure to. If you allow the deployment in the first place into the vehicle (and load it up with shooty models).

Emergency Disembark can be used during a Wreck or it can be used during a voluntary Disembark. It just requires a Disembark process where you cannot place the models next to an entry point.

The only time you can get out of a Vehicle without Disembark is during an Explodes! result or similar, as you stated.

So here's how it works out.


Pre-FAQ

The BRB broadly gives permission for your units to embark on, be deployed 'inside', and/or to be designated (in Reserves) 'embarked upon' any transport.

Your units that are 'enemy' with a transport cannot embark on that transport or disembark from that transport due to requirement to stay 1" from an enemy unit.

This means that only Battle Brothers can wind up in each other transports.


Post-FAQ

Your units can't start the game embarked in allied transports.

Your units can embark 'enemy' transports during the game (including your opponents!) since measuring from the embarked unit to the transport no longer happens.

Units cannot disembark (including emergency disembark) from 'enemy' transports.


So post-FAQ you can jump into your opponent's unoccupied transport and shoot at the enemy or even at the transport itself from the fire points while being protected from enemy fire by the transport .

Pretty much that exactly.