xmbk wrote: Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?
Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?
1. Yes, just declare the Ogryns are deployed inside as per the rules for deploying transports. In fact, I think RaW you don't even have to pick the Ogryns with the Ambush stratagem RaW. "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up." So you deploy the transport with ambush before deploying the Ogryns in any fashion, then declare the Ogryns are embarked when you "set up in ambush" the transport.
2. No, there isn't. Even in matched play. The matched play limit explicitly excludes stratagems used before the game and not in an actual game phase (Movement, Shooting etc). However keep in mind the Tactical Reserves limit still applies, so you can't just ambush your whole army. You still need 50% of your units on the board even after using Ambush.
That first answer is stretching the 'pick three units' somewhat. The Ogryns are a unit, wherever they are, and the Stratagem allows a set number of units, that I believe have to be Tallarn. So 'just happening' to be full of Auxilia? I don't agree that's allowed, RAW.
Ogryns can't take a regiment, so they can't take the strategy. But they can take a Stormlord taxi. Only other example I can think of is a Cloudstrike Wave Serpent, but I haven't seen an explicit ruling on that, either.
xmbk wrote: Ogryns can't take a regiment, so they can't take the strategy. But they can take a Stormlord taxi. Only other example I can think of is a Cloudstrike Wave Serpent, but I haven't seen an explicit ruling on that, either.
Ogryns don't need the regiment to deploy embarked on the Stormlord. The stratagem only affects the Stormlord, not the units that set up embarked on it.
xmbk wrote: Ogryns can't take a regiment, so they can't take the strategy. But they can take a Stormlord taxi. Only other example I can think of is a Cloudstrike Wave Serpent, but I haven't seen an explicit ruling on that, either.
Ogryns don't need the regiment to deploy embarked on the Stormlord. The stratagem only affects the Stormlord, not the units that set up embarked on it.
thats still putting them in reserve. they wouldnt be able to do it as per them not having a regiment. They also count for the limit as well. Only Tallern units can be put in reserve as per the strat and only 2 additional to the stormlord. A unit is simply embarked within the transport. They are not held in reserve unless an ability is given to the unit to be able to be in reserve. The transport doesnt instill that ability.
xmbk wrote: Ogryns can't take a regiment, so they can't take the strategy. But they can take a Stormlord taxi. Only other example I can think of is a Cloudstrike Wave Serpent, but I haven't seen an explicit ruling on that, either.
Ogryns don't need the regiment to deploy embarked on the Stormlord. The stratagem only affects the Stormlord, not the units that set up embarked on it.
thats still putting them in reserve. they wouldnt be able to do it as per them not having a regiment. They also count for the limit as well. Only Tallern units can be put in reserve as per the strat and only 2 additional to the stormlord
You're totally wrong on this point. The embarked unit doesn't have to be Tallern, they don't count to the limit. All they have to do is be a legal unit to embark on the Stormlord and use the rules for deploying transport vehicles to begin embarked. I even quoted the rules required in my first post.
I then "Choose up to three TALLARN units to be set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield (only one of these units can have the VEHICLE keyword)."
I then decide to set up a Stormlord and two Tallarn Company Commanders (because why not).
I invoke the rule from the rulebook: "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up."
I declare that the "units" that "start the battle embarked within it" are my Ogryns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zedsdead wrote: nope... your wrong. they can be deployed but not held in reserve. deployment doesnt give them the extra ability
Oh boy, you claim I am wrong with zero proof or citations. Brilliant!
I have given you the rules, I have given you the full sequence using those rules. Do you have an argument beyond "Nuh uh!"?
nope...still wrong. Read the reinforcements rule. You need to have the ability to be held in reserve. The strategum gives that if you are tallern. Orgyns cant get it.
the strat only allows you to bring in no more than 3 units total.
and no its not deployment..its reinforcements done in the movement phase
zedsdead wrote: nope...still wrong. Read the reinforcements rule. You need to have the ability to be held in reserve. The strategum gives that if you are tallern. Orgyns cant get it.
the strat only allows you to bring in no more than 3 units total.
and no its not deployment..its reinforcements done in the movement phase
Are you wilfully ignoring the part where the transport rules give you explicit permission to set up inside the transport during deployment? I even highlighted the magic words, "set up". It's consistent across all the rules.
Pretty sure the Reinforcement rules have nothing to say on the matter? I'm seriously confused now because I literally do not see anything regarding being set up during deployment, only mid game.
you are declaring that the Vehical is going in reserve. So it isnt going to be set up on the board. Its getting an ambush rule that allows it to be used as a reinforcement unit. so unless the unit "also" has the same rule it cant be setup embarked in the Vehicle
Funny, I could have sworn the transport rules didn't say "set up on the board", they just said "set up."
Oh, how bout dat! They only say "set up". You're adding words where there are none.
There is no such thing as "Reserve". You're stuck in 7th edition mindset. There is only being set up now, regardless of where it might be.
I understand if you think this isn't what the "intent" is, that's fine. It's also totally irrelevant to what the actual rules, as written in the rulebooks, say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zedsdead wrote: so unless the unit "also" has the same rule it cant be setup embarked in the Vehicle
zedsdead wrote: 1 of those units gets the ability to "setup" during the movement phase.
What? Ambush is used in deployment, long before the first turn or any movement is done.
Again, I am asking for specific citations. I laid out the sequence in a previous post, what part of that sequence are you having problems with?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zedsdead wrote: nothing allowed you to hold the Orgyns in reserve to set them up in the reserved Tank.
The rule on page 183 of the rulebook does. I've quoted it multiple times and I'll quote it again. "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up."
Again, again, again, the tank is NOT in "Reserves". It is being "set up in ambush". These are NOT the same things. If you want the rules for real "Reserves", check out the narrative missions or the new CA missions.
"declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up"
you arent setting up the tank until movement phase.
The rule literally says "Choose up to three TALLARN units to be set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield..."
What part of that is not clear?
You have fundamentally misunderstood what the Ambush stratagem does. You are simply wrong on this matter. It's clear however you do not intend to be swayed despite multiple literal quotes from the rulebooks, so I will bow out of this discussion before I lose my cool and say something that will cause the Space Police to swoop down and CONCORD me.
because the Tank is being setup in ambush still doesnt allow the unit embarked to be setup in ambush. You want embarked to give the unit an additional rule... im sorry it doesnt.
zedsdead wrote: because the Tank is being setup in ambush still doesnt allow the unit embarked to be setup in ambush. You want embarked to give the unit an additional rule... im sorry it doesnt.
And yet Rulebook says:
Page 183
When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up.
See how the rulebook does not specify "set up on battlefield" just "set up"? Becouse this applies to drop pods in high orbit and transports in ambush.
zedsdead wrote: because the Tank is being setup in ambush still doesnt allow the unit embarked to be setup in ambush. You want embarked to give the unit an additional rule... im sorry it doesnt.
And yet Rulebook says:
Page 183
When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up.
correct...
but it doesnt say that unit gets any special rules. Ambush is a special rule given to the tank only. so in this case they cant.
zedsdead wrote: because the Tank is being setup in ambush still doesnt allow the unit embarked to be setup in ambush. You want embarked to give the unit an additional rule... im sorry it doesnt.
And yet Rulebook says:
Page 183
When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up.
See how the rulebook does not specify "set up on battlefield" just "set up"? Becouse this applies to drop pods in high orbit and transports in ambush.
exactly... Drop Pod Assault is a spacific rule that allows anything inside it to be deployed in ambush.
You have fundamentally misunderstood what the Ambush stratagem does. You are simply wrong on this matter. It's clear however you do not intend to be swayed despite multiple literal quotes from the rulebooks, so I will bow out of this discussion before I lose my cool and say something that will cause the Space Police to swoop down and CONCORD me.
exactly... Drop Pod Assault is a spacific rule that allows anything inside it to be deployed in ambush.
the Stormlord doesnt have that rule.
The ambush stratagem allows up to three units to be placed in ambush. They are not on the battlefield, yet. The transporter is empty, no one is embarked. At the end of any of my movement phases i set up the stormlord (its a transporter) according to the rules of the stratagem.
The transporter rule says : "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are
embarked inside the transport when you set it up."
I have just set up a transporter on the battlefield with the ambush stratagem. Now the transporter rule allows me to declare what units are embarked inside the transport. I declare ogryns are embarked.
There is no need to place any units inside the transporter before using the ambush stratagem, the transporter rule allows me to declare that when the transporter is set up on the battlefield.
zedsdead wrote: Ambush is a special rule given to the tank only. so in this case they cant.
No, it isn't. You're literally making things up now to support your utterly incorrect argument. Ambush is not a special rule. You have explicit permission to put the Ogryns in the Stormlord. That's the end of the discussion right there.
@p5freak
Actually placing unit "in ambush" is "set up". Exactly like placing drop pod in high orbit - somewhere else than battlefield, which means Reserves.
The same goes with Ambush - you set up unit somwhere else than battlefield. Later after game starts they arrive as Reserves in form of Ambush.
@zedsdead
I see that many transport units have additional rules for embarked unit to come along (from Reserves), but I'm not sure if this is necessery since Core Rules gives blanket permission for that!
zedsdead wrote: Ambush is a special rule given to the tank only. so in this case they cant.
No, it isn't. You're literally making things up now to support your utterly incorrect argument. Ambush is not a special rule. You have explicit permission to put the Ogryns in the Stormlord. That's the end of the discussion right there.
No you dont. and it isn't. Reading out two rules is great and all, but at no point do the Ogryns get the ability to be chosen to be off the table. RAW is not on your side here.
zedsdead wrote: because the Tank is being setup in ambush still doesnt allow the unit embarked to be setup in ambush. You want embarked to give the unit an additional rule... im sorry it doesnt.
And yet Rulebook says:
Page 183
When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up.
correct...
but it doesnt say that unit gets any special rules. Ambush is a special rule given to the tank only. so in this case they cant.
zedsdead wrote: because the Tank is being setup in ambush still doesnt allow the unit embarked to be setup in ambush. You want embarked to give the unit an additional rule... im sorry it doesnt.
And yet Rulebook says:
Page 183
When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up.
See how the rulebook does not specify "set up on battlefield" just "set up"? Becouse this applies to drop pods in high orbit and transports in ambush.
exactly... Drop Pod Assault is a spacific rule that allows anything inside it to be deployed in ambush.
You have fundamentally misunderstood what the Ambush stratagem does. You are simply wrong on this matter. It's clear however you do not intend to be swayed despite multiple literal quotes from the rulebooks, so I will bow out of this discussion before I lose my cool and say something that will cause the Space Police to swoop down and CONCORD me.
just wanted to save that last quote
Totally agree with this, zedsdeads. Sadly, BCB does this often; chide, deride, then hide.
Units in reserve are still set up there, it's in the Designers Commentary:
Q: In missions where players alternate deploying units, do units that are set up somewhere other than the battlefield still count as a player’s deployment choice? What about units that begin the battle embarked within a transport?
A: Units with abilities on their datasheets that allow them to be set up somewhere other than the battlefield must still be ‘set up’ in that locale, and so still count as a deployment choice. When you choose to set up a transport, declare what units (if any) are embarked inside – these are not separate deployment choices.
I have to say I think the IG player can transport his Ogryns or any other units that are legal to be transported, just the same as a Waveserpent being dropped in with the Eldar stratagem can bring in Wraithguard.
I think this for reasons already presented above, the rules say "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately" and the Stromlord is certainly being set up as per the wording of the ambush rule.
Drager wrote: I have to say I think the IG player can transport his Ogryns or any other units that are legal to be transported, just the same as a Waveserpent being dropped in with the Eldar stratagem can bring in Wraithguard.
I think this for reasons already presented above, the rules say "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately" and the Stromlord is certainly being set up as per the wording of the ambush rule.
Then why does a Drop pod have the Drop Pod Assault rule, if the Transports rules alone would allow them to carry passengers? I believe it's because otherwise it couldn't carry passengers without express permission on their datasheet to not deploy normally.
Absence of prohibiton is not the same as permission. It a fallacy many fall into. "It doesn't say I can't" is not how the rules operate.
Agreed. But in this case, the rules do give you permission, the Designer's Commentary specifically so. GW has always struggled with consistent wording, so I'm not sure the Drop Pod rule means much in this case.
xmbk wrote: Agreed. But in this case, the rules do give you permission, the Designer's Commentary specifically so. GW has always struggled with consistent wording, so I'm not sure the Drop Pod rule means much in this case.
I'd love to see them FAQ this.
Can you show me where it says units without permission to begin off the board can do so? I haven't found anything that says that. There's a clause that says units in a transport count as one drop, but I can't find one allowing extra permissions. Always open to being wrong, just can't find anything of the sort!
Drager wrote: I have to say I think the IG player can transport his Ogryns or any other units that are legal to be transported, just the same as a Waveserpent being dropped in with the Eldar stratagem can bring in Wraithguard.
I think this for reasons already presented above, the rules say "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately" and the Stromlord is certainly being set up as per the wording of the ambush rule.
Then why does a Drop pod have the Drop Pod Assault rule, if the Transports rules alone would allow them to carry passengers? I believe it's because otherwise it couldn't carry passengers without express permission on their datasheet to not deploy normally.
Absence of prohibiton is not the same as permission. It a fallacy many fall into. "It doesn't say I can't" is not how the rules operate.
There is a permission to embark passengers and no restriction on doing so that I can see. I'm not making an "It doesn't say I can't argument." Please identify the fallacy in my argument if there is one, preferably by name.
Premise 1) The Tallarn stratagem tells you to set up a unit in ambush.
Premise 2) The rules for embarking passengers trigger on a transport being set up.
Conclusion) Passengers can embark on a transport that has used the stratagem.
I'm really torn on this. I have always read it as being like BCB explains... but I can see the other argument now.
The fulcrum of the argument (and the reason I don't think we can resolve it) is...
WITHOUT ambush, I pick a unit to set up on the battlefield. It's a transport, so I can tuck other stuff in it as per the rules.
WITH ambush, I pick three units to set up in ambush. One's a transport, but I now can't tuck stuff in it unless I've also chosen them as one of my 3 with the stratagem.
I don't see that there's enough evidence in the rules either way. You can argue that the standard 40k rules for transports take precedence... or you can argue that the words "pick three units" take precedence. Both sound right.
Silentz wrote: I'm really torn on this. I have always read it as being like BCB explains... but I can see the other argument now.
The fulcrum of the argument (and the reason I don't think we can resolve it) is...
WITHOUT ambush, I pick a unit to set up on the battlefield. It's a transport, so I can tuck other stuff in it as per the rules.
WITH ambush, I pick three units to set up in ambush. One's a transport, but I now can't tuck stuff in it unless I've also chosen them as one of my 3 with the stratagem.
I don't see that there's enough evidence in the rules either way. You can argue that the standard 40k rules for transports take precedence... or you can argue that the words "pick three units" take precedence. Both sound right.
Aye, and muddying the waters: "Choose up to three Tallarn units to setup in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield."
So not three units, three specifically Tallarn units. Which if you follow the second line of logic in your post, the Ogryns can't comply with.
Without restricting to three Tallarn units, you could pick a Tallarn Gorgon, two Tallarn one man units, and somehow bring 16 Ogryns along for the ride - a little more than 'three Tallarn units", no? That is surely not the intent or the RAW wording of the rule. I don't believe this is how it operates.
the transport must have rules that impart an ability on the unit embarked within it for them to function.
same as the "Drop Pod Assault" does..
same as the "open topped" rule does
same as the "firing deck" rule does.
no where in the rules does it ever state an ability given to one unit transfers to another unit simply because its emabarked within it..no where. As you can see within the rules of each transport "Datasheet" there must be an "Ability" that allows a unit embarked to do something.
Silentz wrote: I'm really torn on this. I have always read it as being like BCB explains... but I can see the other argument now.
The fulcrum of the argument (and the reason I don't think we can resolve it) is...
WITHOUT ambush, I pick a unit to set up on the battlefield. It's a transport, so I can tuck other stuff in it as per the rules.
WITH ambush, I pick three units to set up in ambush. One's a transport, but I now can't tuck stuff in it unless I've also chosen them as one of my 3 with the stratagem.
I don't see that there's enough evidence in the rules either way. You can argue that the standard 40k rules for transports take precedence... or you can argue that the words "pick three units" take precedence. Both sound right.
Aye, and muddying the waters: "Choose up to three Tallarn units to setup in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield."
So not three units, three specifically Tallarn units. Which if you follow the second line of logic in your post, the Ogryns can't comply with.
Without restricting to three Tallarn units, you could pick a Tallarn Gorgon, two Tallarn one man units, and somehow bring 16 Ogryns along for the ride - a little more than 'three Tallarn units", no? That is surely not the intent or the RAW wording of the rule. I don't believe this is how it operates.
Actually the Ambush Strat is pretty clear on its intent on how its worded. The intent is the Strat only wants 3 units the ability to go in reserve..hence the "pick 3 Tallarn units" part. If you try to give that same "ability" the the units embarked within it... (which it doesn allow btw) you could essentially allow up to 40 additional models of multiple combinations (the Stormlord capacity) to go into reserve as well. Clearly not the intent of the Strat.
Silentz wrote: I'm really torn on this. I have always read it as being like BCB explains... but I can see the other argument now.
The fulcrum of the argument (and the reason I don't think we can resolve it) is...
WITHOUT ambush, I pick a unit to set up on the battlefield. It's a transport, so I can tuck other stuff in it as per the rules.
WITH ambush, I pick three units to set up in ambush. One's a transport, but I now can't tuck stuff in it unless I've also chosen them as one of my 3 with the stratagem.
I don't see that there's enough evidence in the rules either way. You can argue that the standard 40k rules for transports take precedence... or you can argue that the words "pick three units" take precedence. Both sound right.
Aye, and muddying the waters: "Choose up to three Tallarn units to setup in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield."
So not three units, three specifically Tallarn units. Which if you follow the second line of logic in your post, the Ogryns can't comply with.
Without restricting to three Tallarn units, you could pick a Tallarn Gorgon, two Tallarn one man units, and somehow bring 16 Ogryns along for the ride - a little more than 'three Tallarn units", no? That is surely not the intent or the RAW wording of the rule. I don't believe this is how it operates.
Actually the Ambush Strat is pretty clear on its intent on how its worded. The intent is the Strat only wants 3 units the ability to go in reserve..hence the "pick 3 Tallarn units" part. If you try to give that same "ability" the the units embarked within it... (which it doesn allow btw) you could essentially allow up to 40 additional models of multiple combinations (the Stormlord capacity) to go into reserve.
I totally agree.
Read my other posts, I was outlining the absurd combos made possible by claiming you could fill a Tallarn transport with whatever you liked. BCB is fond of putting "RAW says" in his posts like that gives them unassailable credibility, even when he's just plain wrong. My Gorgon example was to show that.
Drager wrote: What is the embarked unit doing in this case?
it cant be embarked in the first place . or to be honest the embarked unit would be lost since there is no "ability" for that unit to go into Ambush" and now sits in limbo having not been deployed earlier on the table.
Silentz wrote: I'm really torn on this. I have always read it as being like BCB explains... but I can see the other argument now.
The fulcrum of the argument (and the reason I don't think we can resolve it) is...
WITHOUT ambush, I pick a unit to set up on the battlefield. It's a transport, so I can tuck other stuff in it as per the rules.
WITH ambush, I pick three units to set up in ambush. One's a transport, but I now can't tuck stuff in it unless I've also chosen them as one of my 3 with the stratagem.
I don't see that there's enough evidence in the rules either way. You can argue that the standard 40k rules for transports take precedence... or you can argue that the words "pick three units" take precedence. Both sound right.
Aye, and muddying the waters: "Choose up to three Tallarn units to setup in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield."
So not three units, three specifically Tallarn units. Which if you follow the second line of logic in your post, the Ogryns can't comply with.
Without restricting to three Tallarn units, you could pick a Tallarn Gorgon, two Tallarn one man units, and somehow bring 16 Ogryns along for the ride - a little more than 'three Tallarn units", no? That is surely not the intent or the RAW wording of the rule. I don't believe this is how it operates.
Actually the Ambush Strat is pretty clear on its intent on how its worded. The intent is the Strat only wants 3 units the ability to go in reserve..hence the "pick 3 Tallarn units" part. If you try to give that same "ability" the the units embarked within it... (which it doesn allow btw) you could essentially allow up to 40 additional models of multiple combinations (the Stormlord capacity) to go into reserve.
I totally agree.
Read my other posts, I was outlining the absurd combos made possible by claiming you could fill a Tallarn transport with whatever you liked. BCB is fond of putting "RAW says" in his posts like that gives them unassailable credibility, even when he's just plain wrong. My Gorgon example was to show that.
correct, your right and i appreciate you stepping in to help further explian it
You are missing one thing. We don't give embarked units the Ambush rule. If we did then we could put "passangers" wholly within 7" of any battlefield edge and more than 9" from enemy models. Which is obviously not what we do.
Transports have ability to embark units during set up. Not during "set up on battlefield". Ambush is form of set up. Should work.
Also should be in FAQ.
danyboy wrote: You are missing one thing. We don't give embarked units the Ambush rule. If we did then we could put "passangers" wholly within 7" of any battlefield edge and more than 9" from enemy models. Which is obviously not what we do.
Transports have ability to embark units during set up. Not during "set up on battlefield". Ambush is form of set up. Should work.
Also should be in FAQ.
In my silly Gorgon-full-of-Ogryns example, how many Tallarn units am I Ambushing with?
- Three. One Gorgon, two dudes.
How many Ogryns am I deploying.
- Sixteen.
How many Ogryns does the Stratagem allow me to Ambush with?
- Zero. Uh-oh...
The Transport rules don't give you carte blanche to ignore other limits present in rules. They pertain to regular deployment and are not written to cover every special rule. Those special rules cover themselves. Here we have a limit of "three Tallarn units" which is fairly unambiguous. Saying I can bring 16 Ogryns along for the ride breaks that rule.
xmbk wrote: Agreed. But in this case, the rules do give you permission, the Designer's Commentary specifically so. GW has always struggled with consistent wording, so I'm not sure the Drop Pod rule means much in this case.
I'd love to see them FAQ this.
Can you show me where it says units without permission to begin off the board can do so? I haven't found anything that says that. There's a clause that says units in a transport count as one drop, but I can't find one allowing extra permissions. Always open to being wrong, just can't find anything of the sort!
The DC specifically states that embarked units do not count as separate deployment choices. They are merely placed in the transport, even when the transport is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield. They do not need permission to deploy in reserve, because they are not being deployed. They have permission to be placed in the transport, which is all that the rules require.
I would love to see the FAQ'd. The RAI are far from clear, but the RAW seems to favor this being legal.
(Thank you for making this a rules question, not a personal moral assault. )
xmbk wrote: Agreed. But in this case, the rules do give you permission, the Designer's Commentary specifically so. GW has always struggled with consistent wording, so I'm not sure the Drop Pod rule means much in this case.
I'd love to see them FAQ this.
Can you show me where it says units without permission to begin off the board can do so? I haven't found anything that says that. There's a clause that says units in a transport count as one drop, but I can't find one allowing extra permissions. Always open to being wrong, just can't find anything of the sort!
The DC specifically states that embarked units do not count as separate deployment choices. They are merely placed in the transport, even when the transport is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield. They do not need permission to deploy in reserve, because they are not being deployed. They have permission to be placed in the transport, which is all that the rules require.
I would love to see the FAQ'd. The RAI are far from clear, but the RAW seems to favor this being legal.
In your view. The RAW prevents it for me. It could do with a revised FAQ. They already FAQ'd to prevent 9 Russes popping up. I'd imagine if they do re-FAQ we'll see "Go Go Ogryn Gorgon" type shenanigans being banned too.
TBH, the worst thing would be a Chimera full of Psykers. Psykers are demonstrably not Tallarn units. Yet you're claiming the RAW allows them to appear this way? I disagree. Three Tallarn units is something I read as a hard limit, specific to this rule, overriding normal permissions.
And no worries dude. It's always interesting to discuss!
The DC specifically states that embarked units do not count as separate deployment choices. They are merely placed in the transport, even when the transport is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield. They do not need permission to deploy in reserve, because they are not being deployed. They have permission to be placed in the transport, which is all that the rules require.
I would love to see the FAQ'd. The RAI are far from clear, but the RAW seems to favor this being legal.
(Thank you for making this a rules question, not a personal moral assault. )
So, you are saying that its possible to put 39 ogryns in 3 stormlords (13 in each) and put them in ambush ?? I dont think so.
The DC specifically states that embarked units do not count as separate deployment choices. They are merely placed in the transport, even when the transport is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield. They do not need permission to deploy in reserve, because they are not being deployed. They have permission to be placed in the transport, which is all that the rules require.
I would love to see the FAQ'd. The RAI are far from clear, but the RAW seems to favor this being legal.
(Thank you for making this a rules question, not a personal moral assault. )
So, you are saying that its possible to put 39 ogryns in 3 stormlords (13 in each) and put them in ambush ?? I dont think so.
The DC specifically states that embarked units do not count as separate deployment choices. They are merely placed in the transport, even when the transport is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield. They do not need permission to deploy in reserve, because they are not being deployed. They have permission to be placed in the transport, which is all that the rules require.
I would love to see the FAQ'd. The RAI are far from clear, but the RAW seems to favor this being legal.
(Thank you for making this a rules question, not a personal moral assault. )
So, you are saying that its possible to put 39 ogryns in 3 stormlords (13 in each) and put them in ambush ?? I dont think so.
The DC specifically states that embarked units do not count as separate deployment choices. They are merely placed in the transport, even when the transport is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield. They do not need permission to deploy in reserve, because they are not being deployed. They have permission to be placed in the transport, which is all that the rules require.
I would love to see the FAQ'd. The RAI are far from clear, but the RAW seems to favor this being legal.
(Thank you for making this a rules question, not a personal moral assault. )
So, you are saying that its possible to put 39 ogryns in 3 stormlords (13 in each) and put them in ambush ?? I dont think so.
I don't think so, you can only take one vehicle.
*One vehicle unit. (as per FAQ)
3 Stormlords aren't one vehicle unit right? I'm not a guard player.
I’ve pinged the GW Facebook team some time ago on this issue. We will have to see if it gets clarified.
I consider the drop pod orbital assault rule enough of a guideline to not stick an extra 8 or 10 units into a Tallaran Stormlord and claim it’s one pick. But that doesn’t mean GW made that explicit in the rules.
The DC specifically states that embarked units do not count as separate deployment choices. They are merely placed in the transport, even when the transport is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield. They do not need permission to deploy in reserve, because they are not being deployed. They have permission to be placed in the transport, which is all that the rules require.
I would love to see the FAQ'd. The RAI are far from clear, but the RAW seems to favor this being legal.
(Thank you for making this a rules question, not a personal moral assault. )
So, you are saying that its possible to put 39 ogryns in 3 stormlords (13 in each) and put them in ambush ?? I dont think so.
For 9 CP and roughly 2500 points, plus the 9 units you would need deployed regularly. So in a 3k game. Is that really a big deal?
I would point out that Eldar can also do this, with Cloudstrike. They can drop 36 Spiritseers in 3 Wave Serpents. That wouldn't involve any concern over regiment word shenanigans.
JohnnyHell wrote: Different rules differently worded don't help really. Eldar can do it doesn't mean Tallarn can.
Agreed. It was in reference to the concerns of intent. A bunch of DS Primaris psykers is fundamentally the same as a bunch of Spiritseers.
Considering you can absolutely DS 3 Baneblades, I don't understand the concern over cargo. I'm ok with leaving this as something that could really use FAQ clarification.
Wouldn't be surprised if they amended Ambush to just one use.
JohnnyHell wrote: Different rules differently worded don't help really. Eldar can do it doesn't mean Tallarn can.
Agreed. It was in reference to the concerns of intent. A bunch of DS Primaris psykers is fundamentally the same as a bunch of Spiritseers.
Considering you can absolutely DS 3 Baneblades, I don't understand the concern over cargo. I'm ok with leaving this as something that could really use FAQ clarification.
Wouldn't be surprised if they amended Ambush to just one use.
You can't use it on three Baneblades. Thee Russes, yes, but Baneblades are single-model units, so a single Baneblade would be the one vehicle unit the FAQ allows.
EDIT: oh I see, you mean play the Strat three times? Yuck.
Yea you could basically burn 9cp to ambush 3 baneblades. Unfortunately even 3 barebones ones will break the 50% rule in a 2k game. I would be more than happy to see my opponent go through so many cp in one shot. Running 3 of them means the best case you are getting 7-8 cp.
JohnnyHell wrote: Different rules differently worded don't help really. Eldar can do it doesn't mean Tallarn can.
Agreed. It was in reference to the concerns of intent. A bunch of DS Primaris psykers is fundamentally the same as a bunch of Spiritseers.
Considering you can absolutely DS 3 Baneblades, I don't understand the concern over cargo. I'm ok with leaving this as something that could really use FAQ clarification.
Wouldn't be surprised if they amended Ambush to just one use.
It really doesn't need a FAQ. It's pretty clear that without a special "ability" such as the drop pod rule for example the only ability that a Stormlord gives its occupants is the "open firing deck" rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
danyboy wrote: You are missing one thing. We don't give embarked units the Ambush rule. If we did then we could put "passangers" wholly within 7" of any battlefield edge and more than 9" from enemy models. Which is obviously not what we do.
Transports have ability to embark units during set up. Not during "set up on battlefield". Ambush is form of set up. Should work.
Also should be in FAQ.
Actually that's really not how it works. Take for instance the drop pod. It's the "drop pod assault " ability built within the drop pods data slate that allows units embarked to be held in reserve.. Without it.. Embarked units can't go in it. Ambush given to a transport only effects the transport. If the transport doesn't have an ability that allows a unit embarked to be held in reserve... It can't be.
It's the data slate lack of ability that restricts it.
The problem there is Wave Serpents. If this is RAI then Wave Serpents can't DS with units in them. I strongly question that is the RAI.
Too often people think RAI is clear, and that the guy disagreeing with them is a rules lawyer (though some people clearly are). The RAI is unclear, the RAW favors allowing it, it needs an FAQ.
RAW, 'deployment choice' and 'units' are two different things.
'Deployment choice' is what we commonly refer to as a 'drop' - say a valkyrie has three units of command squad embarked it in at deployment.
This is a single 'deployment choice' comprised of four (4) units: one (1) valkyrie and three (3) command squad.
Ambush stratagem is clear on the wording that 'three tallarn units' and not 'three tallarn deployment choices'. Clearly, while non-tallarn units may embark on a tallarn vehicle, the said tallarn vehicle with non-tallarn units may not use Ambush as the non-tallarn units are ineligible targets of the stratagem. It doesn't even need to go into 'where is the locale of the embarked units' and 'do transports endow abilities to its contents" argument.
Really, it's not a discussion of RAI vs RAW - there's no room for alternate interpretation.
xmbk wrote: What 50% rule? You can easily drop 3 tanks and have more units on the field.
As for the FAQ, you should read the thread. It doesn't need to give the units special deployment rules, because they aren't deployed.
This is correct. I was thinking points and not units..my mistake.
Ihowever i find it pretty hard for a army to field a super heavy detatchement of baneblades,and a battalion getting 9cp. But if you can... Go for it. I would to see,you burn through all of your command points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: RAW, 'deployment choice' and 'units' are two different things.
'Deployment choice' is what we commonly refer to as a 'drop' - say a valkyrie has three units of command squad embarked it in at deployment.
This is a single 'deployment choice' comprised of four (4) units: one (1) valkyrie and three (3) command squad.
Ambush stratagem is clear on the wording that 'three tallarn units' and not 'three tallarn deployment choices'. Clearly, while non-tallarn units may embark on a tallarn vehicle, the said tallarn vehicle with non-tallarn units may not use Ambush as the non-tallarn units are ineligible targets of the stratagem.
Really, it's not a discussion of RAI vs RAW.
Exactly
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xmbk wrote: The problem there is Wave Serpents. If this is RAI then Wave Serpents can't DS with units in them. I strongly question that is the RAI.
Too often people think RAI is clear, and that the guy disagreeing with them is a rules lawyer (though some people clearly are). The RAI is unclear, the RAW favors allowing it, it needs an FAQ.
Incorrect.
The cloud strike strat spacifically mentions if the wave serpent is used as a transport the units inside can go there. The Tallern strat has no such allowance.
I mean really... Sheesh only players trying to bend the rule to meet there needs are making this simple thing an issue. I get it.. You want RAI to allow it...however it doesn't by clear RAW.which is RAI
So I'm making it an issue to bend to my needs as a guy with no IG? I simply think the raw allows it. I even posted my explanation as a syllogism when I was told it was fallacious. I've not seen a convincing argument to disallow RAW and only shaky ones for RAI.
Drager wrote: So I'm making it an issue to bend to my needs as a guy with no IG? I simply think the raw allows it. I even posted my explanation as a syllogism when I was told it was fallacious. I've not seen a convincing argument to disallow RAW and only shaky ones for RAI.
Three Tallarn units. Where does the Stratagem allow any more than these three, specifically Tallarn, units to be deployed in Ambush? It doesn't. That's not RAI or shaky. That's solid RAW, sorry. RAW is not remotely unclear as it says "three Tallarn units".
We've probably passed the useful discussion phase. It's unclear to me. If someone tried this against me, I could not give him a solid explanation as to why he can't do it.
Drager wrote: Yes. The passengers are deployed on the vehicle. Not ambushing. I understand your argument I simply disagree. Do you understand mine?
I understand your reasoning but don't believe it's possible. Whilst the potential pssengers have permission to be in a Transport on the board, nothing gives them permission to be off the board. To think otherwise is to allow the various Psyker Taxi / Ogryn Megabus shenanigans. I don't believe RAW allows that, and I highly doubt it was intended RAI as they'd not limit to "Three Tallarn units" if they meant "see how much you can stuff in a Transport!"
By the way if the FAQ does allow it I'm coining "Ogryn Megabus" as a thing right here.
Drager wrote: Yes. The passengers are deployed on the vehicle. Not ambushing. I understand your argument I simply disagree. Do you understand mine?
I understand your reasoning but don't believe it's possible. Whilst the potential pssengers have permission to be in a Transport on the board, nothing gives them permission to be off the board. To think otherwise is to allow the various Psyker Taxi / Ogryn Megabus shenanigans. I don't believe RAW allows that, and I highly doubt it was intended RAI as they'd not limit to "Three Tallarn units" if they meant "see how much you can stuff in a Transport!"
By the way if the FAQ does allow it I'm coining "Ogryn Megabus" as a thing right here.
Heck yea. I'll be loading mine up with mordan units that can target characters
It doesn't matter whether they're inside the transport. You are mistaking 'deployment choice' with number of 'units.'
Taking your "The passengers are deployed on the vehicle" sentence, switch the word "passenger" with "units," as passengers undoubtedly units.
...the units are deployed on the vehicle.
Clearly, the units embarked on the vehicle still count towards the unit count, regardless of their current locale.
Ambush allows up to three tallarn units to be placed into tactical reserves, not three tallarn deployment choices. It really can't be any more clearer.
Drager wrote: Yes. The passengers are deployed on the vehicle. Not ambushing. I understand your argument I simply disagree. Do you understand mine?
I understand your reasoning but don't believe it's possible. Whilst the potential pssengers have permission to be in a Transport on the board, nothing gives them permission to be off the board. To think otherwise is to allow the various Psyker Taxi / Ogryn Megabus shenanigans. I don't believe RAW allows that, and I highly doubt it was intended RAI as they'd not limit to "Three Tallarn units" if they meant "see how much you can stuff in a Transport!"
By the way if the FAQ does allow it I'm coining "Ogryn Megabus" as a thing right here.
Heck yea. I'll be loading mine up with mordan units that can target characters
Also coining "Mordian Megabus" and "The Lascannon Express" just in case...
Just got home and read Cloudstrike. Specifically allows this, which indicates GW doesn't have a problem with the concept. I realize that both sides probably think that the fact it is already allowed strengthens their argument, but at the least it says GW doesn't think it's a big deal.
xmbk wrote: Just got home and read Cloudstrike. Specifically allows this, which indicates GW doesn't have a problem with the concept. I realize that both sides probably think that the fact it is already allowed strengthens their argument, but at the least it says GW doesn't think it's a big deal.
No. Cloudstrike is a strategem that affects a single vehicle with fly keyword. It goes on to describe what the affected vehicle may do, if it is also a transport.
Ambush is a stratagem that allows deepstrike of three units that couldnt deepstrike otherwise. The three units may be deployed in a single drop if one of the three units was a transport.
There is no room for interpretation. It is a rare case of concise wording GW has brought forth.
Again, it's easy to see support for what we believe. Cloudstrike affects 1 model for 1 CP, but can be purchased multiple times. So 3 CP affects 3 units, just like Ambush. More importantly, for 1 CP it allows 12 Spiritseer (or any chars) to DS with the transport. Hard to argue that GW believes this is an abuse for Primaris psykers (or Ogryns) when they explicitly allow it for Eldar.
Truly, it's not exactly the same. But the close similarities make it easy to see why some believe it was intended for Ambush to also work like this. And again, the Designer's Commentary explicitly allows it, by stating that units in transports do not count as deployed.
If someone took an infantry unit with Chimera, most people would count that as 1 of the 3 ambushers. Arguing that it's 2 seems pedantic and wrong, to me.
Cloudstrike is irrelevant to the Tallarn Ambush discussion. All it does by bringing it up is support the case that the Stratatgem would need specific permission to embark non-Tallarn units in any Ambushing vehicles. So it doesn't say what you want it to are help your case for the Ogryn Megabus, sorry. Of course GW "don't have a problem with the concept" in a Stratagem specifically worded to circumvent permissions on what can set up where. The Tallarn Ambush also has special permissions... none of them involve allowing more than 3 units or any non-Tallarn passengers. Really, it's wriggling and twisting to make rules fit to say otherwise.
On your last point:
Arguing that a Chimera plus an infantry unit is 2 deployment drops would be wrong. It's one drop.
Arguing that a Chimera plus an infantry unit is 2 units is demonstrably correct. Arguing two units are 1 is the erroneous take. 1 + 1 very much equals 2.
So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.
I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.
xmbk wrote: So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.
I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.
Would love to see it in an FAQ.
I've addressed and refuted the counter-arguments already so won't repeat them - I understand the reasonings but disagree with them. I also don't think GW need to FAQ that 1+1=2 but there you go.
xmbk wrote: So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.
I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.
Would love to see it in an FAQ.
Yes that exactly correct. The way GW seems to want it is that the strat effects 3 units only. So a Tallern squad deployed in a chimera would be 2 of the 3 choices.
xmbk wrote: So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.
I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.
Would love to see it in an FAQ.
I've addressed and refuted the counter-arguments already so won't repeat them - I understand the reasonings but disagree with them. I also don't think GW need to FAQ that 1+1=2 but there you go.
You haven't addressed the fact that the Designer's Commentary specifically tells you not to count troops on transports as deployments. The fact that they are units for the purpose of Ambush is irrelevant, because they aren't placed in reserve during deployment.
The fact that you think this is a simple 1+1=2 tells me you don't understand it. I've been in these discussions more times than I can remember. Sometimes the ruling agreed with me, sometimes it didn't. But the people who believe they "clearly understand GW's intent" are wrong 100% of the time on these topics.
xmbk wrote: So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.
I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.
Would love to see it in an FAQ.
I've addressed and refuted the counter-arguments already so won't repeat them - I understand the reasonings but disagree with them. I also don't think GW need to FAQ that 1+1=2 but there you go.
You haven't addressed the fact that the Designer's Commentary specifically tells you not to count troops on transports as deployments. The fact that they are units for the purpose of Ambush is irrelevant, because they aren't placed in reserve during deployment.
The fact that you think this is a simple 1+1=2 tells me you don't understand it. I've been in these discussions more times than I can remember. Sometimes the ruling agreed with me, sometimes it didn't. But the people who believe they "clearly understand GW's intent" are wrong 100% of the time on these topics.
For deployment, no, but they are still a unit. How many units are you allowed to deploy? Three, Tallarn ones. Does adding more non-Tallarn units exceed that? Yes.
You need to comply with all rules that are applicable. But I covered this in earlier posts using RAW.
I can't really repeat this in any different ways now. Trying to staple rules together to make a workaround doesn't work. The simple "Three Tallarn units" kills most of the attempted arguments stone dead, even without venturing anywhere near intent. RAW, how many units is "Three Tallarn units"? Does that honestly need this length of thread and an FAQ?? We know how the "Is zero inches less than five inches?" worked out...
For deployment, no, but they are still a unit. How many units are you allowed to deploy?
You directly contradict yourself here. They are not a unit for deployment purposes, but count towards the Tallarn deployment limitation?
Your argument is logically similar to those who said 0 is not less than 5.
You're not following.
Deployment drops are different to units. If you read my post that way there is no contradiction - indeed it's how we're told the game operates.
Multiple units can be a single 'drop' (colloquial term) for deployment purposes, but they are still multiple units for other rules purposes. For example, a Chimera is a unit, the officer and Infantry Squad in it are two units. One drop, three units. Following? You need to get this logic or my post won't read right.
Take the Psyker Party Bus idea... let's say you intend to Ambush:
You are ignoring the Designer's Commentary. The units aren't being deployed in Reserve, so they aren't part of Ambush. That's the key point.
Luckily, I don't see how this can be powergamed, and your feared Ogryn bus is already legal to just chug across the board. So I'm out, looking forward to the FAQ.
xmbk wrote: You are ignoring the Designer's Commentary.
At any rate, you are getting frustrated and rude. Luckily, I don't see how this can be powergamed, and your feared Ogryn bus is already legal to just chug across the board. So I'm out, looking forward to the FAQ.
Please explain then. I don't get what you're saying. You're saying that e.g. 13 units = 3 units, which is absurd, and that units can board whatever wherever they like despite Dataslate rules being absent. Show me a case and lets discuss. Otherwise there's no point posting.
xmbk wrote: How is that absurd, if Eldar can do it? You think the Eldar text is making an exception, I think it's a clarification.
Got no problem with your opinion, just think it's silly to claim certainty.
I think the Eldar text grants permission, which the Tallarn strategem does not. But I will agree that there's enough ambiguity that it should be clarified in a FAQ.
The idea of a Stormlord with 18 HWT (1 + 6 units) rolling in and unloading off of it's rear deck is somewhat amusing.
xmbk wrote: How is that absurd, if Eldar can do it? You think the Eldar text is making an exception, I think it's a clarification.
Got no problem with your opinion, just think it's silly to claim certainty.
If the text doesn't appear on the AM Strat in the AM book why do you think it applies if it's in the Aeldari Codex? It's not relevant to discuss in this 'bespoke rules' edition.
xmbk wrote: How is that absurd, if Eldar can do it? You think the Eldar text is making an exception, I think it's a clarification.
Got no problem with your opinion, just think it's silly to claim certainty.
I think the Eldar text grants permission, which the Tallarn strategem does not. But I will agree that there's enough ambiguity that it should be clarified in a FAQ.
The idea of a Stormlord with 18 HWT (1 + 6 units) rolling in and unloading off of it's rear deck is somewhat amusing.
It can already do that, just not with deepstriking. Half of them can even fire without unloading.
xmbk wrote: Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?
Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?
xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.
xmbk wrote: Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?
Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?
xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.
Says the person ignoring the rules and making up rules to support their argument.
I answered this in the literal first reply and you've dragged it on to 3 pages.
xmbk wrote: Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?
Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?
xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.
Says the person ignoring the rules and making up rules to support their argument.
I answered this in the literal first reply and you've dragged it on to 3 pages.
and you answered it wrong.
but your right...
i made up drop pod assault
i made up cloudstrike
i made up the Tallern Strat that doesnt allow units inside to go into Ambush
i made up the abilities portion of the dataslates
none of these "rules" support your position.
All i hear is a bunch of GW..shuduh, coulduh woulduh and GW ment it this way and that... from you guys.
The argument that has been put forward to allow it is that passengers are not ambushing. So 3 units ambush X units are deployed on a vehicle. These are not ambushing just because the vehicle is. This is why the 1+1 = 2 argument missed the point. 1x + 1y still only had 1x.
xmbk wrote: Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?
Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?
xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.
Says the person ignoring the rules and making up rules to support their argument.
I answered this in the literal first reply and you've dragged it on to 3 pages.
You answered incorrectly. And here you are with the insults.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Drager wrote: The argument that has been put forward to allow it is that passengers are not ambushing. So 3 units ambush X units are deployed on a vehicle. These are not ambushing just because the vehicle is. This is why the 1+1 = 2 argument missed the point. 1x + 1y still only had 1x.
Aye, if you need algebra to solve how many units "Three Tallarn units" is then something is wrong.
xmbk wrote: Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?
Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?
xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.
Agreed. I wondered if there was something I was missing. Couple of good points, but now we're just at the silly namecalling stage.
Cloudstrike specifically states the transport can carry units inside. It is an explicit statement what the transport can do when the stratagem gets used.
While GW is largely inconsistent with the contradictions, they reuse reworded phrases for rules that work the same (i.e. deepsrike - during deployment... it is set up [enter locale here].). If ambush stratagem allowed you to discount embarked units from its 3 unit cap, the stratagem would have included something along the lines of 'if this stratagem is used on a transport, all units embarked inside it remain so...'
BaconCatBug wrote: The cloudstrike line is reminder text, the core rules already cover it.
Since when do rules have 'reminder text'? They don't. It's a rule giving permissions. The Drop Pod also has a similar permission rule, not 'reminder text'. 'Reminder text' simply isn't a thing.
BaconCatBug wrote: The cloudstrike line is reminder text, the core rules already cover it.
Since when do rules have 'reminder text'? They don't. It's a rule giving permissions. The Drop Pod also has a similar permission rule, not 'reminder text'. 'Reminder text' simply isn't a thing.
GW has added 'reminders' to the rules for many, many years.
BaconCatBug wrote: The cloudstrike line is reminder text, the core rules already cover it.
Since when do rules have 'reminder text'? They don't. It's a rule giving permissions. The Drop Pod also has a similar permission rule, not 'reminder text'. 'Reminder text' simply isn't a thing.
GW has added 'reminders' to the rules for many, many years.
This is not that. ;-) And the Aeldari Stratagem is *still* irrelevant to this thread.
xmbk wrote: Just got home and read Cloudstrike. Specifically allows this, which indicates GW doesn't have a problem with the concept. I realize that both sides probably think that the fact it is already allowed strengthens their argument, but at the least it says GW doesn't think it's a big deal.
So if Cloudstrike said something specific, it supported you, and if it didn't, it still supported you? It doesn't work like that. It has specific language to allow passengers. Tallarn ambush doesn't. In order for passengers to go into reserves with Tallarn, you have to count them as one of the units that goes into reserves. All the Designer's commentary says is that they don't count as a separate deployment choice; it doesn't say they don't count as a unit going into reserve. If the limitation on going into reserve is 3 Tallarn units, then you must select 3 Tallarn units and no non-Tallarn units to go into reserve. You haven't been given permission there to have a non-Tallarn unit go into reserve, only Tallarn units.
Ghaz wrote: Here is an EXAMPLE of GW putting a reminder in the rules from ack in 5th edition.
Even less relevant to an 8th rules discussion...
Relevant since you asked when do rules have reminders and claiming that reminders 'isn't a thing'.
If we're scoring those kind of points, sigh, congrats, you win one. But come on, let's try and keep to the current rules if we're to get anywhere! 5th edition rules are simply irrelevant in an 8th discussion. That's surely self-evident.
Now, if anyone has any others ways to try and claim "Three Tallarn units" somehow *actually* means "Three Tallarn units plus as many dudes as you can cram in a Transport" let's 'ave 'em! Else this thread is pretty much done with those three words.
"Three Tallan units".
People give GW flak for sloppy writing but on this occasion the wording is pretty damn simple and precise.
There's literally nothing rules wise stopping me from setting a transport in ambush, and then declaring I have other unit embarked inside it. Literally nothing. Any argument otherwise is grasping at straws.
Stus67 wrote: There's literally nothing rules wise stopping me from setting a transport in ambush, and then declaring I have other unit embarked inside it. Literally nothing. Any argument otherwise is grasping at straws.
1) Are you trying to fill up a transport that has been set up in 'ambush' deep strike locale, with units that were already in tactical reserves by other means?
2) Is this about setting up a transport that has been filled up with non-tallarn units, to be set up in the 'ambush' deep strike locale?
If it's about 1, it's redundant as regular deep strike is more versatile and flexible as ambush only allows you to deploy at the board edge. However, if this IS your concern, yes I do agree with you that it is within grey area that needs to be clarified.
If it's about 2, this is clearly not permitted as per wording of the rule.
This is more of general vs specifics than a RAW vs RAI argunent.
Cloudstrike permits you put a flyer vehicle into reserves. Furthermore, it SPECIFICALLY permits you to bring the passengers with the vehicle if the said vehicle is a transport. Ambush stops at permission to bring three units into reserves. No further specifics are given beyond the given permission.
Its not a reminder text. It specifically further permits certain actions.
skchsan wrote: Furthermore, it SPECIFICALLY permits you to bring the passengers with the vehicle if the said vehicle is a transport.
Which, as has been shown multiple times, is unnecessary because the core rules already let you. It is reminder text.
It's been stated by you, not proven. Big difference.
And you still haven't addressed the restriction to "Three Tallarn units". Which is inescapably RAW not RAI, very simple, and you're blithely ignoring. Also, stow the baiting/trolling, dear chap.
I put it to GW on Facebook anyway so let's see if it gets picked up to FAQ how many units "Three Tallarn units" is.
As I said earlier, the units deployed in the transport are not ambushing or in ambush reserve themselves, they are deployed in the transport, so it doesn't break the restriction. I know you disagree with that assertion.
On a personal note, I honestly can't see any other way to read it and if I tried to restrict the IG player to not taking extra units in the transport I'd feel like I was cheating, so I would always allow them to do it as, as far as I can tell it is strict raw.
I haven't really got anything else to my argument than the syllogism I pointed out earlier. I then tried to clarify using algebra to make it clear what I meant to people who didn't seem to get what I was saying. That didn't go over well. I'm going to assume people understand my stance at this point and simply disagree.
I don't find the arguments for disallowing this to have made their case and as such I am not persuaded to their view. As of right now I am convinced that the RAW is ambiguous enough that they may have a case somewhere.
RAW: My reading is Tallarn can take extra passengers, but I could be wrong.
HIWPI: As RAW above.
RAI: No clue.
Needs an FAQ this. It can be read either way without too much of a stretch.
The stretch from one side is that the first thing the stratagem tells you is that this applies to "three tallarn units". So deciding you can now apply it to anything else aside that (e.g. two tallarn units, a tallarn transport, and the stuff inside the transport) is breaking the rules.
The stretch from the other side is that whenever you "set up" a transport (the words used both in the stratagem and deployment) you are always allowed as per BRB to put other units inside it... so why would this stratagem break that rule?
As someone who is building and painting Tallarn right now... I honestly think it's the weaker version, where only three Tallarn units can ever be ambushed and nothing else... but before this thread I thought it was the other way around.
Aren't units deployed "in" places? I know the game has been quite specific lately even about stuff in "reserve" - there is no more reserve. Sometimes they're deployed in High Orbit, or in teleportariums, or in valkyries, etc. Either way, it is always very specific about where something is deployed.
A unit has permission to deploy "in a transport."
One could make the argument that the units aren't "in reserve" or "in ambush" but instead "in a transport."
So if you were following a logical chain, it would be:
1) I deploy these units in this transport.
2) I use the stratagem to put said transport in Ambush.
Then the opponent can say: "but those units are In Reserve" and then you can say "No, they're in a Transport. They can't actually be in reserve, as they have no special rule saying they can set up anywhere other than the transport or on the board."
And then the typical counter-argument could be: "well, the transport is in reserve!"
Presumably, the answer is "Yes, yes it is. But where the transport is has nothing to do with the units inside. The transport could have a special rule letting it deploy in the enemy DZ, and units could still deploy in it. Because they aren't deploying in the enemy's DZ, they are deploying in a transport."
And I don't think anyone is arguing you can't put a Tallarn infantry squad in a Tallarn chimera and infiltrate that, plus ONE other thing...
However the stratagem's wording of "select three tallarn units" *could* be seen to overrule the general ability to make the transported unit effectively "disappear" for deployment purposes.
Silentz wrote: Yes, that's a totally fair reading of the rules.
And I don't think anyone is arguing you can't put a Tallarn infantry squad in a Tallarn chimera and infiltrate that, plus ONE other thing...
However the stratagem's wording of "select three tallarn units" *could* be seen to overrule the general ability to make the transported unit effectively "disappear" for deployment purposes.
But I thought transports (as a general rule) have always been allowed to make units "disappear" for deployment purposes, and since you already have permission, presumably you would have to have that permission specifically revoked, rather than not referred to at all?
Typically, if a transport could enter reserves, it specifically permits you its content can be brought along. Please refer to drop pod assault rules. Last lines of cloudstrike reads much in the same lines as drop pod assault rule.
I think RAI, cloudstrike was to allow flying transports to be used in similar fashion as a drop pod, hence the shared phrases.
Ambush does not specify this. I dont think units set up in transport locale can be brought along, as it doesnt have any special rules that allow you to do so.
skchsan wrote: as it doesnt have any special rules that allow you to do so.
Except it DOES. The core rules allow you to do so. I even posted the relevant rules with fancy yellow highlighting to show that this is the case.
Transport rule permits you put units inside of it. It does not permit you to carry over any rules upon its content unless it is specifically permitted to do so.
Various units that grant deepstriking to units that otherwise coudlnt specifically permits you to do so via special rule it has: drop pod assault (drop pod), transport spore (tyranocyte), subterrainean assault (trygon). Simply being a transport does not allow you to change 'on battlefield, inside transport' locale to 'in reserve, inside transport' unless it is specifically permitted (i.e. cloudstrike)
skchsan wrote: Transport rule permits you put units inside of it. It does not permit you to carry over any rules upon its content unless it is specifically permitted to do so.
Well first of all "Ambush" isn't a rule, it's just an alternate deployment.
Secondly, by that logic models that can't FLY in a Wave Serpent break the game.
Also, please provide a citation or rulebook quote for that assertion.
skchsan wrote: as it doesnt have any special rules that allow you to do so.
Except it DOES. The core rules allow you to do so. I even posted the relevant rules with fancy yellow highlighting to show that this is the case.
Transport rule permits you put units inside of it. It does not permit you to carry over any rules upon its content unless it is specifically permitted to do so.
Various units that grant deepstriking to units that otherwise coudlnt specifically permits you to do so via special rule it has: drop pod assault (drop pod), transport spore (tyranocyte), subterrainean assault (trygon). Simply being a transport does not allow you to change 'on battlefield, inside transport' locale to 'in reserve, inside transport' unless it is specifically permitted (i.e. cloudstrike)
You are missing the point, I think.
It gives you permission to put the unit in the transport. The reserves are not being "carried over" as the unit isn't actually in reserve. Think about it this way:
Where is the unit? In the transport.
Where is the transport? In reserve.
Both of those are true statements, but the following statement:
"The unit is in a transport, which is in reserve, and therefore is in reserve itself" is making a logical leap unsupported by the rules. You would have to have a statement somewhere that says "a unit in a transport in reserve is also itself in reserve, as well as in the transport."
And that would have all kinds of wonky effects. E.g. the narrative play reserve rule where you roll a dice for each unit in reserve: 1) If the unit is in reserve in a transport, do you roll a dice for it separately, and if it passes, does the unit disembark from its transport and then walk on, and you have to roll the transport for a later turn? 2) If the transport passes and the unit fails, does the transport boot the passengers out before coming onto the board?
EDIT: In fact, in the narrative rules, it explicitly says not to roll for the unit separately, as it is deployed with the transport.
The discussion has digressed from its original discussion from Unit1126PLL’s post @ 2017/12/12 14:12:38,
In order to facilitate this discussion, we first need to define and agree upon certain terminologies:
Deployment choice: models set up during deployment. Colloquially referred to as a ‘drop.’ A single deployment choice can be comprised of multiple <units>.
Unit: entries in the datasheets. Units can be comprised of single model, or as much as the datasheet allows.
Transport: A keyword which permits a vehicle to carry units inside of it.
On battlefield: Units that have been set up on the battlefield, as opposed to set up in tactical reserves. Binary opposite of “off the battlefield.”
We look at tactical reserves:
”… when setting up your army during Deployment… at least half the total numbers of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield.”
Here, we establish how units and deployment choices interact with the act of setting units up in reserve. When we are determining the 50% limit on setting up units in reserve, we count the number of units that has been set up on battlefield, not the total number of deployment choices. You can hold two units in reserve if you have a transport with a unit inside it deployed onbattlefield, because although the transport + unit consists of single deployment choice, it is considered to be two units. The unit has not “disappeared for the purpose of deployment” as you still count them for the purpose of calculating tactical reserves.
We now look to the ‘Ambush’ stratagem of Tallarn regiment:
“… choose up to three Tallarn units to set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield.”
Here, we are permitted to choose three units, not deployment choices, specifically those that are of Tallarn regiment, to set up in a reserves locale called ‘ambush’ instead of being placed on the battlefield. Here, you need to have the following keywords in order to be affected by the stratagem: TALLARN. Just because you're embarked on a tallarn transport doesn't make you a tallarn unit, nor does it exempt you from the keyword check as you're still counted as a unit.
This is where the Cloudstirke stratagem argument came in:
”… you can set up an asuryani vehicle unit… that can fly in the clouds instead of placing it on the battlefield… If you use this stratagem on the transport, all units embarked inside it remain so when it is set up in the clouds.”
Here, the stratagem affects a single unit with fly keyword. It has similar restriction to Ambush where it specifies the required keywords: ASURYANI, VEHICLE, and FLY for the unit to be a eligible target of the stratagem. It further goes on to permit transports to retain its passengers when it is set up in the locale called “clouds.” This is a specific extension as to what the unit that was the target of the stratagem may do. It permits additional units to take advantage of the stratagem although they don't have the requisite keywords, thus ineligible targets of the stratagem, as long as they can embark on the TRANSPORT that has the keywords ASURYANI, VEHICLE, and FLY.
You can't take a generalist approach on stratagems. Am I surprised that eldars have potentially stronger stratagem? Not since the game was born.
skchsan wrote: Transport rule permits you put units inside of it. It does not permit you to carry over any rules upon its content unless it is specifically permitted to do so.
Well first of all "Ambush" isn't a rule, it's just an alternate deployment.
Anything giving permissions is part of the rules. Not a valid rebuttal. The Rules are the Core Rules, Codexes, Datasheets FAQs, Stratagems... etc etc... the whole shebang.
BaconCatBug wrote: Secondly, by that logic models that can't FLY in a Wave Serpent break the game.
Wrong - the unit emarked are given permission to be on board by the Wave Serpent's Datasheet, and then are covered by the Transports rules. RAW permitted. Don't use fallacious counter-examples as it doesn't illuminate anything.
BaconCatBug wrote: Also, please provide a citation or rulebook quote for that assertion.
You've had tonnes of rules quoted but are ignoring all views but your own. You're also ignoring "Three Tallarn units" in every single one of your posits. Three very simple, very obvious, very restrictive words. You've not posted anything that allows you to ignore this part of the rules in play.
skchsan wrote: as it doesnt have any special rules that allow you to do so.
Except it DOES. The core rules allow you to do so. I even posted the relevant rules with fancy yellow highlighting to show that this is the case.
Transport rule permits you put units inside of it. It does not permit you to carry over any rules upon its content unless it is specifically permitted to do so.
Various units that grant deepstriking to units that otherwise coudlnt specifically permits you to do so via special rule it has: drop pod assault (drop pod), transport spore (tyranocyte), subterrainean assault (trygon). Simply being a transport does not allow you to change 'on battlefield, inside transport' locale to 'in reserve, inside transport' unless it is specifically permitted (i.e. cloudstrike)
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't see why your assessment prevents units in transports to be set up in those transports while the transports are set up in Ambush?
I agree with everything you've said, and yet think you can have ogryns in an ambushing transport.
Why?
Because they're not in Ambush. They're in a transport. They were never selected for the stratagem, and need not be, because nothing says they do.
Because the ogryns inside ambushing transports are units inside a transport. The said units are ineligible recipients of the stratagem as they cannot have TALLARN keyword.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't see why your assessment prevents units in transports to be set up in those transports while the transports are set up in Ambush?
I agree with everything you've said, and yet think you can have ogryns in an ambushing transport.
Why?
Because they're not in Ambush. They're in a transport. They were never selected for the stratagem, and need not be, because nothing says they do.
How are Ogryns allowed to deploy?
- Does their Datasheet provide any way for them to be set up as tactical reserves? No. So they can't be off board.
- They're not Tallarn, so the Ambush Stratagem doesn't give them permission either.
If these imaginary Ogryns have no legal way to be deployed off board, and can't be selected for the Ambush Stratagem then you can't deploy them anywhere other than on the board, or in a Transport that begins deployed on the board.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't see why your assessment prevents units in transports to be set up in those transports while the transports are set up in Ambush?
I agree with everything you've said, and yet think you can have ogryns in an ambushing transport.
Why?
Because they're not in Ambush. They're in a transport. They were never selected for the stratagem, and need not be, because nothing says they do.
Because the ogryns inside ambushing transports are units inside a transport. The said units are ineligible recipients of the stratagem as they cannot have TALLARN keyword.
Your first sentence is right, yes.
Your second sentence is also right.
However, they are also not being recipients of the stratagem, so that doesn't stop them from being deployed in a transport while the transport is in Ambush. The stratagem is never once checked against the Ogryns.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't see why your assessment prevents units in transports to be set up in those transports while the transports are set up in Ambush?
I agree with everything you've said, and yet think you can have ogryns in an ambushing transport.
Why?
Because they're not in Ambush. They're in a transport. They were never selected for the stratagem, and need not be, because nothing says they do.
How are Ogryns allowed to deploy?
- Does their Datasheet provide any way for them to be set up as tactical reserves? No. So they can't be off board. - They're not Tallarn, so the Ambush Stratagem doesn't give them permission either.
If these imaginary Ogryns have no legal way to be deployed off board, and can't be selected for the Ambush Stratagem then you can't deploy them anywhere other than on the board, or in a Transport that begins deployed on the board.
Three Tallarn units. It's super simple.
The Ogryns are in a transport, which they are allowed to be. They're not deployed "off the board." They're deployed in a transport.
The fact that the transport is off the board is comparatively irrelevant.
I haven't seen one, really, that another poster didn't already refute. If there was one that went ignored, perhaps it's due to my own inelegance; care to re-hash for me so I can either address it or admit that I am incorrect?
The transport and the ogryns are two separate units deployed as one drop. For all purposes of stratagem, it affects the individual units, not the drop consisting of transport and ogryns.
skchsan wrote: The transport and the ogryns are two separate units deployed as one drop. For all purposes of stratagem, it affects the individual units, not the drop consisting of transport and ogryns.
Right, but it isn't affecting the Ogryns. At all. They're in a transport, that's how they were deployed and is totally legal.
Let's use an example:
I am deploying my units. I declare that I have 6 Ogryns in a Banehammer.
Then, I use the Tallarn stratagem and select 3 units.
I choose the Banehammer, an Infantry Squad, and a Company Commander.
Transports:
"... when you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately..."
The act of embarking does not "meld" the transport and the embarked together. The unit inside a transport is and always a unit for all rules purposes unless stated otherwise.
skchsan wrote: Transports: "... when you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately..."
The act of embarking does not "meld" the transport and the embarked together. The unit inside a transport is and always a unit for all rules purposes unless stated otherwise.
I agree completely.
I don't know why that's relevant. The rule you quoted, in fact, suggests that units are allowed to embark in transports while remaining separate units.
So 1) I have permission to embark on the transport during deployment 2) I have permission to do other stuff with the transport.
I haven't seen one, really, that another poster didn't already refute. If there was one that went ignored, perhaps it's due to my own inelegance; care to re-hash for me so I can either address it or admit that I am incorrect?
Dude, I've explained this so many times now I'm not typing it out again. Plenty of pages of circular nonsense for you to re-read if you feel like it. I'm done as people are just trying to make it personal now. I'm entirely calm and unphased by it, do note, but if people are deploying fallacious comparisons, baiting posts etc. it's time to be done with a thread.
When your Ogryns have the permission to have the TALLARN Keyword let's chat. Until then, I maintain the Stratagem does what it says on the tin, allows three Tallarn units to Ambush.
It doesn't mean "Three Tallarn units plus as many others as I can squeeze into the Tallarn transport". Because quite simply, if it meant that it would say it.
YMMV, roll on the next FAQ iteration when this will no doubt be cleared up like "Is stationary less than half movement?"
I haven't seen one, really, that another poster didn't already refute. If there was one that went ignored, perhaps it's due to my own inelegance; care to re-hash for me so I can either address it or admit that I am incorrect?
Dude, I've explained this so many times now I'm not typing it out again. Plenty of pages of circular nonsense for you to re-read if you feel like it0. I'm done as people are just trying to make it personal now. I'm entirely calm and unphased by it, do note, but if people are deploying fallacious comparisons, baiting posts etc. it's time to be done with a thread.
When your Ogryns have the permission to have the TALLARN Keyword let's chat. Until then, I maintain the Stratagem does what it says on the tin, allows three Tallarn units to Ambush.
It doesn't mean "Three Tallarn units plus as many otehrs as you can squeeze into the Tallarn transport". Because qute simply, if it meant that it would say it.
YMMV, roll on the next FAQ iteration when this will no doubt be cleared up like "Is stationary less than half movement?"
Yes, I agree on the next FAQ it will presumably be cleared up.
As for the rest of your post - the Ogryns don't need the tallarn keyword as I am explaining now, though the fact that you still think it does means you haven't even read my argument.
That's intellectually dishonest, to argue against someone without understanding them.
I haven't seen one, really, that another poster didn't already refute. If there was one that went ignored, perhaps it's due to my own inelegance; care to re-hash for me so I can either address it or admit that I am incorrect?
Dude, I've explained this so many times now I'm not typing it out again. Plenty of pages of circular nonsense for you to re-read if you feel like it0. I'm done as people are just trying to make it personal now. I'm entirely calm and unphased by it, do note, but if people are deploying fallacious comparisons, baiting posts etc. it's time to be done with a thread.
When your Ogryns have the permission to have the TALLARN Keyword let's chat. Until then, I maintain the Stratagem does what it says on the tin, allows three Tallarn units to Ambush.
It doesn't mean "Three Tallarn units plus as many otehrs as you can squeeze into the Tallarn transport". Because qute simply, if it meant that it would say it.
YMMV, roll on the next FAQ iteration when this will no doubt be cleared up like "Is stationary less than half movement?"
Yes, I agree on the next FAQ it will presumably be cleared up.
As for the rest of your post - the Ogryns don't need the tallarn keyword as I am explaining now, though the fact that you still think it does means you haven't even read my argument.
That's intellectually dishonest, to argue against someone without understanding them.
I've read every post in the thread, thanks. I understand what you're saying and have explained why I disagree. Drop the ad hominems, please.
skchsan wrote: Ypure applying the Ambush stratagem on a deployment choice of banehammer and ogryns inside
No, I am applying it to the unit "Banehammer," regardless of what is inside. It could be air, 25 genestealer cultists, a single particularly aggressive Commissar, or 6 Ogryns.
skchsan wrote: Ypure applying the Ambush stratagem on a deployment choice of banehammer and ogryns inside
No, I am applying it to the unit "Banehammer," regardless of what is inside. It could be air, 25 genestealer cultists, a single particularly aggressive Commissar, or 6 Ogryns.
Except, you can't single out the banehammer only once you've declared it as a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.
skchsan wrote: Ypure applying the Ambush stratagem on a deployment choice of banehammer and ogryns inside
No, I am applying it to the unit "Banehammer," regardless of what is inside. It could be air, 25 genestealer cultists, a single particularly aggressive Commissar, or 6 Ogryns.
Except, you can't single out the banehammer only once you've declared it as a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.
Why not?
Can you not select the Banehammer to shoot with, without selecting the unit inside? Could you not select the Banehammer as a target, if it has units inside?
The Banehammer is a unit, and therefore eligible to be treated like a unit by itself, regardless of the contents of its passenger hold.
skchsan wrote: Ypure applying the Ambush stratagem on a deployment choice of banehammer and ogryns inside
No, I am applying it to the unit "Banehammer," regardless of what is inside. It could be air, 25 genestealer cultists, a single particularly aggressive Commissar, or 6 Ogryns.
Except, you can't single out the banehammer only once you've declared it as a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.
Why not?
Can you not select the Banehammer to shoot with, without selecting the unit inside? Could you not select the Banehammer as a target, if it has units inside?
The Banehammer is a unit, and therefore eligible to be treated like a unit by itself, regardless of the contents of its passenger hold.
skchsan wrote: Ypure applying the Ambush stratagem on a deployment choice of banehammer and ogryns inside
No, I am applying it to the unit "Banehammer," regardless of what is inside. It could be air, 25 genestealer cultists, a single particularly aggressive Commissar, or 6 Ogryns.
Except, you can't single out the banehammer only once you've declared it as a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.
Why not?
Can you not select the Banehammer to shoot with, without selecting the unit inside? Could you not select the Banehammer as a target, if it has units inside?
The Banehammer is a unit, and therefore eligible to be treated like a unit by itself, regardless of the contents of its passenger hold.
Because you've elected to deploy them as one.
Right, but "deployment choice" and "unit" are different things, as you've rightly pointed out.
The Banehammer is a "unit", and together with the Ogryns they are a "Deployment choice".
The Tallarn stratagem, though, asks us to pick units, not deployment choices, and the Banehammer is an eligible unit regardless of what it carries.
It's not eligible for the stratagem, and no one is trying to choose it with the stratagem. It's literally never even considered when choosing units for the purposes of the stratagem.
skchsan wrote: Why shouldn't the units inside a transport not counted for the stratagem? Where does it permit this?
It doesn't have to "permit" it, because the units aren't even considered.
The units shouldn't be counted because they're not even being called out or considered? And aren't even eligible?
The stratagem would have to say "counting units in transports" or "transports must be empty" or something of that nature; as it is written, it doesn't matter what's inside the transport at all. It's completely irrelevant; the word Transport is never even found in the stratagem.
Something would have to tell you to check for passengers, otherwise there is no reason to presume that it's relevant to the stratagem at all.
The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.
skchsan wrote: The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.
It doesn't need to be "Given" the ability. Other special rules may include the wording for clarity, but the fact of the matter is that transports already have permission to carry units, and so while the clarification might be omitted (and that omission is the reason this thread exists), it is not necessary to include.
Transports have the ability to carry units by default, regardless of where they are.
Wouldn't you air on the side of caution until a,FAQ and not use it in a game ?
I run Tallern and stormlords. I wouldn't use the stratagem your way until it's clarified... Wouldn't you ?
Wouldn't you air on the side of caution until a,FAQ and not use it in a game ? I run Tallern and stormlords. I wouldn't use the stratagem your way until it's clarified... Wouldn't you ?
I don't run Tallarn, but if I did, I'd ask my opponent first and have a discussion before the game, but no, I wouldn't default to assuming it works this way, as there is clear ambiguity.
That said, I do believe the logic-chain of RAW is clear, even if the inclusion of GW's typical clarification would reduce ambiguity on the face of things.
skchsan wrote: The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.
It doesn't need to be "Given" the ability. Other special rules may include the wording for clarity, but the fact of the matter is that transports already have permission to carry units, and so while the clarification might be omitted (and that omission is the reason this thread exists), it is not necessary to include.
Transports have the ability to carry units by default, regardless of where they are.
Why do you feel that it can be omitted?
If a unit cannot normally be set up in reserves, they must be set up on the battlefield.
A transport on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with units that are in tactical reserves.
A unit on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with a transport in tactical reserves.
Deployment choice is formed at deployment/entering the battlefield, not before.
If the ogryns could not enter reserves, while the banehammer can, it cannot form a deployment choice of "banehammer with ogryns inside"
skchsan wrote: The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.
We've explained this to you about 30 times now. It doesn't have to "receive the ability" because the ability is baked into the core transport rules. By your logic putting some Guardians into a Wave Serpent is illegal because the Wave Serpent doesn't give the embarked Guardians the ability to FLY or to move 16"
skchsan wrote: The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.
It doesn't need to be "Given" the ability. Other special rules may include the wording for clarity, but the fact of the matter is that transports already have permission to carry units, and so while the clarification might be omitted (and that omission is the reason this thread exists), it is not necessary to include.
Transports have the ability to carry units by default, regardless of where they are.
Why do you feel that it can be omitted?
If a unit cannot normally be set up in reserves, they must be set up on the battlefield.
A transport on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with units that are in tactical reserves.
A unit on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with a transport in tactical reserves.
I feel it can be omitted because it was a clarification. Clearly, it cannot be, as such lack of clarity causes issues...
As for your points:
1) A transport on the battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with a unit in tactical reserves because a unit cannot be in two places at once (both "in a transport" and "in orbit" or wherever).
2) A unit on the battlefield can also, presumably, not be a deployment choice with a transport at all, in reserves or otherwise, for much the same reason. It cannot be both "on the battlefield" and "in a transport."
However, neither of your point disproves the actual case, which is:
skchsan wrote: The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.
It doesn't need to be "Given" the ability. Other special rules may include the wording for clarity, but the fact of the matter is that transports already have permission to carry units, and so while the clarification might be omitted (and that omission is the reason this thread exists), it is not necessary to include.
Transports have the ability to carry units by default, regardless of where they are.
Why do you feel that it can be omitted?
If a unit cannot normally be set up in reserves, they must be set up on the battlefield.
A transport on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with units that are in tactical reserves.
A unit on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with a transport in tactical reserves.
Deployment choice is formed at deployment/entering the battlefield, not before.
If the ogryns could not enter reserves, it cannot form a deployment choice of "banehammer with ogryns inside"
To address your edit now:
I don't understand your point. I thought we had already gotten over the "deployment choice" as being irrelevant, since units are different than deployment choices. Now we're bringing it back up again for some reason?
Because your proposed "banehammer with ogryns inside" is a deployment choice. You don't put ogryns inside before the stratagem because the act of putting something in a transport occurs when you are "setting the unit up," on or off the battlefield.
If the transport exist at a locale that units cannot enter, they cannot form a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.
I.E. - if by the restrictions of ambush stratagem and ogryns could not enter tactical reserves, it cannot be deployed together inside the transport which was in tactical reserves.
You don't put units inside a transport THEN move it to tactical reserves.
The special rule that I keep referring to PULLS the units into tactical reserves so that it may be deployed as a single choice.
skchsan wrote: Because your proposed "banehammer with ogryns inside" is a deployment choice. You don't put ogryns inside before the stratagem because the act of putting something in a transport occurs when you are "setting the unit up," on or off the battlefield.
If the transport exist at a locale that units cannot enter, they cannot form a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.
I.E. - if by the restrictions of ambush stratagem and ogryns could not enter tactical reserves, it cannot be deployed together inside the transport which was in tactical reserves.
Presumably, the transport does not need to be placed in tactical reserves until after it has already been selected by the Ogryns to be used as a transport, if the only thing bothering you is order of operations. The Banehammer starts off deployment as a regular unit, able for the ogryns to be deployed inside of it, and then when the stratagem is used on it, the Banehammer becomes a reserves unit. The stratagem does not care what is inside of it at the time it is used.
However, I don't believe in order of operations, and instead believe that a unit "in a transport" is not a unit "in reserves" even if said transport is in reserves. That's my interpretation.
In fact, requiring a unit to both be "in reserves" and "in a transport" is requiring a unit to be in two places at once, and is logically impossible. It is either itself "in reserves" or it is itself "in a transport" but cannot be both, even if the two units are deployed together as a single 'deployment choice' when the Banehammer arrives on the table.
EDIT:
You keep editing your post after you've already posted it, and that makes replying in one swoop rather hard.
As for your addition: I agree, I don't believe in any "order of operations" during deployment. Fortunately, I don't have to; the ogryns are not "in reserve" they are "in a transport". (Even though it is possible that the transport itself is in reserve; whether or not it is is comparatively irrelevant to the Ogryn unit).
skchsan wrote: Because your proposed "banehammer with ogryns inside" is a deployment choice. You don't put ogryns inside before the stratagem because the act of putting something in a transport occurs when you are "setting the unit up," on or off the battlefield.
If the transport exist at a locale that units cannot enter, they cannot form a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.
I.E. - if by the restrictions of ambush stratagem and ogryns could not enter tactical reserves, it cannot be deployed together inside the transport which was in tactical reserves.
Presumably, the transport does not need to be placed in tactical reserves until after it has already been selected by the Ogryns to be used as a transport, if the only thing bothering you is order of operations. The Banehammer starts off deployment as a regular unit, able for the ogryns to be deployed inside of it, and then when the stratagem is used on it, the Banehammer becomes a reserves unit. The stratagem does not care what is inside of it at the time it is used.
However, I don't believe in order of operations, and instead believe that a unit "in a transport" is not a unit "in reserves" even if said transport is in reserves. That's my interpretation.
In fact, requiring a unit to both be "in reserves" and "in a transport" is requiring a unit to be in two places at once, and is logically impossible. It is either itself "in reserves" or it is itself "in a transport" but cannot be both, even if the two units are deployed together as a single 'deployment choice' when the Banehammer arrives on the table.
EDIT:
You keep editing your post after you've already posted it, and that makes replying in one swoop rather hard.
As for your addition: I agree, I don't believe in any "order of operations" during deployment. Fortunately, I don't have to; the ogryns are not "in reserve" they are "in a transport". (Even though it is possible that the transport itself is in reserve; whether or not it is is comparatively irrelevant to the Ogryn unit).
Transport rule clearly states that you "declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up" It's not an ignorable order of operations.
Ambush stratagem is used during deployment. It allows you to put units in reserve instead of deploying on the battlefield.
The banehammer isn't deployed on the battlefield AND THEN removed from play via stratagem.
You are not on the transport until the moment transport/passengers are set up on the battlefield or reserves.
As for the edit, maybe try waiting a few minutes before replying
skchsan wrote: Transport rule clearly states that you "declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up" It's not an ignorable order of operations.
Ambush stratagem is used during deployment. It allows you to put units in reserve instead of deploying on the battlefield. The banehammer isn't deployed on the battlefield AND THEN removed from play via stratagem. You are not on the transport until the moment transport/passengers are set up on the battlefield or reserves.
As for the edit, maybe try waiting a few minutes before replying
I am going to quote my post on page 1 of this thread. You are making up words and ignoring the rules. Look, I've even highlighted the key words in yellow.
I then "Choose up to three TALLARN units to be set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield (only one of these units can have the VEHICLE keyword)."
I then decide to set up a Stormlord and two Tallarn Company Commanders (because why not).
I invoke the rule from the rulebook: "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up."
I declare that the "units" that "start the battle embarked within it" are my Ogryns.
You are asserting that because the banehammer isn't deployed on the battlefield it matters, it does not. The words "set up" are used consistently and constantly.
You know how this is going to end right? Either you're going to be laughed at by opponents for making stuff up, GW is going to give us an FAQ that confirms what the rule says, or GW is going to issue an errata/special snowflake ruling, proving you wrong from a rules as written standpoint.
So the transport exists in reserves. Neato, good for the transport.
I deploy a unit of Ogryns in the transport. The Ogryns are not in reserve. (In fact, they cannot be, as a unit cannot be in two places at once, i.e. "in a transport" and "in reserve.")
skchsan wrote: By extension of your wordings: The ogryns are inside the transport. The transport is in reserve. Ogryns are in reserve.
Can you explain why you think the first three steps of that logic chain (all true) somehow indicate or otherwise demonstrate the last step?
At the very least, the concluding step should read "The Ogryns are in a transport which is in reserve." If I asked "where the Ogryns were?" and you said "in reserve" I'd rightly say "Oh, that's impossible, they don't have that rule!" but if you said "in a transport, which is itself in reserve" I'd say "oh, sure, fine, they can be in a transport."
The Ogryns are not existing in reserve; they're existing in a transport (which is itself in reserve).
xmbk wrote: BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.
Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...
...that people can somehow parse the phrase "three Tallarn units" to include "and multiple embarked Ogryns", flying in the face of a very basic sentence?
I know that ruins your Shakespeare but it's more accurate. And it avoids the implied "tale told by an idiot" ad hominem too.
For those hung up on the "3 little words": Ogryns are "ambushing" because of the transport rules, not because of the stratagem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bonus points for getting the Shakespeare reference. Unfortunately, you English Lit guys are not known for your logic skills.
P1: Guardians are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is Flying (q -> n)
C: Guardians are Flying (p -> n)
Having guardians inside a flying transport doesn't prohibit the transport from utilizing the benefits of fly keyword though?
Your reasoning is valid but not sound.
xmbk wrote: For those hung up on the "3 little words": Ogryns are "ambushing" because of the transport rules, not because of the stratagem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bonus points for getting the Shakespeare reference. Unfortunately, you English Lit guys are not known for your logic skills.
My logic skills are just fine, thanks. Stow the ad hominems, dude, Rule 1 exists.
P1: Ogryns are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is in reserve (q -> n)
C: Ogryns are in reserve (p -> n)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xmbk wrote: BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.
Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...
Can't wait to see Stormlord Ogryns dominating the tournament scene.
I don't know man, it seems like BCB's the most loud and fury-ie here. Unit and I are just having logical discussions.
You're misusing modus ponens here.
You should rephrase:
"If the transport is in reserve, then anything inside the transport is in reserve." (p->q)
"The Ogryns are inside the transport" (q)
"Therefore, they are in reserve" (p)
This is a valid argument.
HOWEVER:
The issue I am having is with your first premise: "If the transport is in reserve, then something inside the transport is in reserve." That is a false premise.
Therefore, while valid, the argument is unsound.
P1: Ogryns are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is in reserve (q -> n)
C: Ogryns are in reserve (p -> n)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xmbk wrote: BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.
Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...
Can't wait to see Stormlord Ogryns dominating the tournament scene.
I don't know man, it seems like BCB's the most loud and fury-ie here. Unit and I are just having logical discussions.
You're misusing modus ponens here.
You should rephrase:
"If the transport is in reserve, then anything inside the transport is in reserve." (p->q)
"The Ogryns are inside the transport" (q)
"Therefore, they are in reserve" (p)
This is a valid argument.
HOWEVER:
The issue I am having is with your first premise: "If the transport is in reserve, then something inside the transport is in reserve." That is a false premise.
Therefore, while valid, the argument is unsound.
Touche. Point taken.
But extending this to regular transports that begin in the reserve - say, you have 3 units, 1 deployed on the battlefield and 1 arriving via drop pod with the drop pod being the 3rd. This would mean that there are 1 unit on board and 2 in reserves, would it not?
P1: Ogryns are inside the transport (p -> q) P2: Transport is in reserve (q -> n) C: Ogryns are in reserve (p -> n)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xmbk wrote: BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.
Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...
Can't wait to see Stormlord Ogryns dominating the tournament scene.
I don't know man, it seems like BCB's the most loud and fury-ie here. Unit and I are just having logical discussions.
You're misusing modus ponens here.
You should rephrase:
"If the transport is in reserve, then anything inside the transport is in reserve." (p->q) "The Ogryns are inside the transport" (q) "Therefore, they are in reserve" (p)
This is a valid argument.
HOWEVER: The issue I am having is with your first premise: "If the transport is in reserve, then something inside the transport is in reserve." That is a false premise. Therefore, while valid, the argument is unsound.
Touche. Point taken.
But extending this to regular transports that begin in the reserve - say, you have 3 units, 1 deployed on the battlefield and 1 arriving via drop pod. This would mean that there are 1 unit on board and 2 in reserves, would it not?
Well, no, you'd have 1 unit on the board and 2 units off the battlefield, but only 1 in reserves (the third is in a transport).
The Matched Play rule says that "half your units" must be deployed on the battlefield, but does not say where else the others must be ("in reserve/in a transport/at home asleep/dead" are all options, after a fashion) and even goes out of its way to state that there are is more than one place a unit can go.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum:
The whole problem might arise from our casual use of the word reserves.
Note that GW does not use the word "reserves" anywhere, and instead says a unit is deployed "somewhere" (e.g. 'in high orbit' or 'in a teleportarium' or 'on the battlefield'.)
It may be useful to drop the reserve nomenclature entirely and start saying where a unit actually is.
However the Craftworld Strategem 'Cloudstrike' mentions that if a transport is chosen, all units embarked inside it remain so in the clouds.
Use this strategem during deployment if you have not used the Webway Strike Strategem (pg119) this battle. You can set up an ASURYANI VEHICLE unit from your army that can FLY in the clouds instead of placing it on the battlefield. It can descend at the end of any of your Movement phases - set it up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy units. If you use this Strategem on a transports, all units embarked inside if remain so when it is set up in the clouds.
Use that information as you will. I believe that the statement is a clarification rather than a qualifier. Given that Tallarn Ambush, and Cloudstrike are similar strategems in nature...
I side with those who are saying that 'yes you can pick 3 tallarn stormlords, and load all 3 up with orgyn'
That's already been talked about, Korbee, and whether it is a necessary permission or merely a clarification is going to be made clear in a future FAQ, presumably, on the issue.
Also, you can't actually use the stratagem on 3 vehicles; due to the new AMFAQ you can only choose 1 vehicle out of the 3 potential units. (the others must, presumably, be non-vehicle).
-I deploy a chimera with three commanders -I then put 4 units of scions in reserve
Then this would be a illegal?
Yes. I suspect said illegality is an unintended consequence, but I have no evidence other than my own belief. It very well could be intended, to stop armies from deploying one tiny transport out of LOS full of random characters and then reserving their entire army, as you rightly point out is made illegal.
-I deploy a chimera with three commanders -I then put 4 units of scions in reserve
Then this would be a illegal?
It would be illegal, because the Tactical Reserve rules are explicit:
"When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield"
Being set up on a transport, in the clouds, in a tunnel, in anything but ON THE BATTLEFIELD, is not on the battlefield. The transport rules are also explicit "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport."
Again, GW has shockingly been actually consistent with their wording and usage of the term "set up".
Can you point me to where it tells us to discount transports as not a unit?
By that extension, if transports are discounted from unit count, shouldn't banehammer also be excluded from being selected for ambush as it is a transport, therefore not counted towards unit count? Wouldn't it?
skchsan wrote: Can you point me to where it tells us to discount transports as not a unit? By that extension, if transports are discounted from unit count, shouldn't banehammer also be excluded from being selected for ambush as it is a transport, therefore not counted towards unit count? Wouldn't it?
Transports aren't discounted from being a unit! The example you posted has 1 unit on the battlefield, 3 units in transports (well, in a transport), and 4 units in orbit. Since half your units have to be on the battlefield, it's illegal, even if it still has the transport on the battlefield.
skchsan wrote: Can you point me to where it tells us to discount transports as not a unit? By that extension, if transports are discounted from unit count, shouldn't banehammer also be excluded from being selected for ambush as it is a transport, therefore not counted towards unit count? Wouldn't it?
Please, for the love of all stop signs in the galaxy, cease. and. fething. desist. </Manperor of Mankind>
You're ignoring words again. They do count as units, the units inside are units, but NOT ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
I admit I was being a bit obnoxious in the last "3 in chimera" example.
But you're saying a single unit in a drop pod with 1 unit deployed would count as "1 unit on the battlefield, 2 units off battlefield, but 1 unit in reserve."
You're saying that a single deployment choice held in reserve counts as only having 1 in reserve, despite how many units fit inside the transport.
In your example, I can have one 6-man ogryn units, two (2) 3-man ogryn unit, or 12 primaris pskyers embarked ina banehammer, and it'll still count as only having one in reserve.
There's only on-battlefield and off-battlefield, with reserve being encompassing category within off-battlefield category.
Can you clarify your explanation of "1 unit on the battlefield, 2 units off battlefield, but 1 unit in reserve" rationale?
xmbk wrote: For those hung up on the "3 little words": Ogryns are "ambushing" because of the transport rules, not because of the stratagem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bonus points for getting the Shakespeare reference. Unfortunately, you English Lit guys are not known for your logic skills.
My logic skills are just fine, thanks. Stow the ad hominems, dude, Rule 1 exists.
I don't think "in reserve" is actually a category anymore.
Units can be "on the battlefield", "on teleportariums", "in high orbit" or "in Reserve" and many more besides. Those are direct quotes from possibilities in the "Tactical Reserves" section of matched play.
Another example is the Militarum Tempestus Scion squad, which is set up "in a high-altitude transport".
Presumably, while we may use reserves (lowercase r) as shorthand for these units, they are actually in a "place" as far as the rules are concerned (one of which, in Narrative Play and some mission special rules, can be Reserves with a capital R!).
These places can include "on the battlefield" as mentioned, but can also include "in a transport." As BCB provided above, units "in a transport" are explicitly no longer "on the battlefield."
Therefore, from those premises, I can conclude that:
1) A unit can be "on the battlefield" or "off the battlefield"
2) A unit anywhere other than "on the battlefield" is off the battlefield.
3) A unit in a transport is "off the battlefield".
4) Therefore, a unit in a transport is not "on the battlefield."
This means that a unit in a transport does not count towards the half of your units you must have "on the battlefield" according to the Matched Play tactical reserves rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum:
I realize I didn't finish what I started.
So what you have is 1 unit "on the battlefield" (whatever the deployed unit is), 1 unit "in a transport" (the unit in the pod), and one unit "in orbit" (The pod).
Incidentally, the pod's special rule actually calls out the unit embarked upon it as being "in orbit" as well, but that's not necessary (and even confuses the issue further).
So in the explicit case of a pod, you'll have 2 units "in orbit" and one unit "on the battlefield."
skchsan wrote: But that means there are two units in "orbit" - not on battlefield and one unit deployed on battlefield.
Shouldn't this violate the tactical reserves rule?
It does! I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't? One unit on the table, one unit in a transport, and one unit in orbit violates the rule just as badly as one unit on the table and two units in orbit does.
So if you have one unit "in a transport" (the unit in the banehammer), and one unit "in ambush" (The banehammer), you'd have two units "in ambush"
But Ogryns cannot be "in ambush" because the "ambush" locale is restricted to Tallarn units only.
So if you have one unit "in a transport" (the unit in the banehammer), and one unit "in ambush" (The banehammer), you'd have two units "in ambush" But Ogryns cannot be "in ambush" because the "ambush" locale is restricted to Tallarn units only.
Do see where we are disagreeing upon?
No. I agree that the Ogryns are "off the battlefield" but I disagree that they are "in ambush."
Explain why the ogryns are "in ambush" again?
They're obviously "in a transport" and therefore off the battlefield, but there's no reason for them to be considered to be in "ambush" (unless you accept the premise you made earlier that states "If a transport is in ambush, a unit inside the transport is also in ambush" which is not a premise I see any proof for).
So essentially, because being "in transport" and being "in ambush" are two different locales, the ogryns would not count towards being in "in ambush," correct?
But when you declare a certain unit is "in transport" you'd have to assign exactly which transport it is in - why is it that you can ignore the locale in which the transport is in?
skchsan wrote: So essentially, because being "in transport" and being "in ambush" are two different locales, the ogryns would not count towards being in "in ambush," correct?
But when you declare a certain unit is "in transport" you'd have to assign exactly which transport it is in - why is it that you can ignore the locale in which the transport is in?
Because it doesn't say to consider that?
It says you can choose what transport the unit goes in, full stop. It never states that you should ever worry about where said transport is (except for midgame; you can only embark if every model is within 3" of the vehicle iirc).
I'm now starting to understand why there's a group arguing this as a RAW vs RAI.
So what you're arguing is that because being 'in transport' puts you into a non-reserve, off-battlefield status, therefore it is not subject to the 'unit' restrictions on putting units into reserve via Ambush, since it's not going into 'reserve' or any other equal 'locale' but into 'in transport' locale, because being 'in transport' does not explicitly tell you that it necessarily shares the said transport's locale.
Then would you also argue that units set aside 'inside trygon's tunnel', 'any units embarked within (a drop pod), in orbit', and as per the wording on transport spore rule for tyrannocyte not be counted as being held in reserve, but rather 'in transport' of a transport which happens to be in reserve?
So in theory, I can fill up a drop pod with 10 single-model units inside and it'll only count as having 1 unit in reserve (the drop pod), since the 10 single-model units are not in reserve because it is in 'in transport' locale?
Pretty much skchsan, but with 10 models in a drop pod you still have 11 units off the board for the Tactical Reserves rule, the embarked units are not in the same location as the drop od though.
Drager wrote: Pretty much skchsan, but with 10 models in a drop pod you still have 11 units off the board for the Tactical Reserves rule, the embarked units are not in the same location as the drop od though.
Yes, this.
You could put 10 single-model units in a reserved transport, giving you 10 "in a transport" units, 1 "in orbit/ambush/wherever" unit, and then however many units"on the battlefield."
However, you have to have 50% of your force "on the battlefield" so with that structure, that's 11 units somewhere other than the battlefield (including "in a transport" and "in reserve"), and that means you need at least 11 units "on the battlefield" as well.
You can't. The stratagem allows you to select 3 tallarn units to be set up in "ambush". So if I put 2 units of tallarn guard troops, and a tallarn transport, and a unit of auxillary ogryn in the transport...I just put 4 units in ambush and one of them is not tallarn.
You don't set up the transport in ambush and then go afterwards I'm also going to set up a unit of ogryns in the transport. Because at that point the transport is in ambush, and the ogryns don't have anything allowing them to be setup in ambush.
The fact they can be set up in the transport is moot. They are not Tallarn, and they exceed the allowed number of ambushing units.
I'm just asking, because you're raising exactly the same points that have already been debunked.
But just to entertain you:
Do you have proof that the Ogryns deployed in the transport are also in Ambush, as the transport is?
They haven't been 'debunked'. Let's not go circular, but let's not pretend there aren't two camps both claiming RAW on their side. The fact that others got bored of the merry-go-round and left it doesn't leave one interpretation as 'correct' by virtue of being last man standing!
I posted it as a FB comment before the email existed and got a reply to say they'd picked it up, and someone on another thread said they'd mailed in. No harm others doing so though, as the more that do the more chance this will get picked up. The only annoying thing might be waiting jntil March for them to tell us how many units "three Tallarn units" is.
JohnnyHell wrote: I posted it as a FB comment before the email existed and got a reply to say they'd picked it up, and someone on another thread said they'd mailed in. No harm others doing so though, as the more that do the more chance this will get picked up. The only annoying thing might be waiting jntil March for them to tell us how many units "three Tallarn units" is.
Or if they finally clearly define transport once and for all so it takes care of numerous problems with transport interactions.
I've read every entry in this thread and do see the points being made pro and con. IMHO, if the strat intended to allow ogryns, psykers, what-have-you then it would say so. It says three Tallarn units. It seems some people want to harp on a perceived technicality to get by with something clearly unintended.
Brotherjulian wrote: I've read every entry in this thread and do see the points being made pro and con. IMHO, if the strat intended to allow ogryns, psykers, what-have-you then it would say so. It says three Tallarn units. It seems some people want to harp on a perceived technicality to get by with something clearly unintended.
I find your claim strange, as with others who have made it. Why would people who don't pay IG be looking for an unintended advantage? That is definitely not my intent, for instance. My nids and dark Eldar can't really make use of this at all.
Brotherjulian wrote: I've read every entry in this thread and do see the points being made pro and con. IMHO, if the strat intended to allow ogryns, psykers, what-have-you then it would say so. It says three Tallarn units. It seems some people want to harp on a perceived technicality to get by with something clearly unintended.
I find your claim strange, as with others who have made it. Why would people who don't pay IG be looking for an unintended advantage? That is definitely not my intent, for instance. My nids and dark Eldar can't really make use of this at all.
I see the reason for the stratagem, Tallarns are mobile and sneaky. They like to use multidirectional attacks to catch their enemies off balance yes? The game focuses on keywords and pins this stratagem on units designated as Tallarn. The stratagem limits it's utility to Tallarn units.
Ogryns do not get the Tallarn keyword so they aren't meant to be ambushed IMHO.
Despite this you refer back to the point that in this edition the rules seemingly give you a wide latitude to throw units into any vehicle you want. That may be so, but the general rule made no allowance for this specific circumstance. The ambush state is only a result of the stratagem which presumably came after the basic rules were written right?
Both units are being set up "somewhere" right? And if they're a "combined drop" then it should be simultaneously. In the basic rule it says the ogryns can be set up in the Chimera, but it doesn't include the possibility that Chimera would be in a place called "ambush" that no one thought of yet.
Hence the ambushing Chimera should be off the battlefield and the Ogryns should be on it. Admittedly I can see the other angle but it still seems like wriggling through a loophole to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And fyi, I've played Tallarn since 2nd ed. Best fitting use I see is to bring in a Hellhound or a veteran squad on somebody's flank. Maybe an infantry squad to seize an objective. I don't see it being a single game winning stroke.
Ok so how do you hold the Ogryn's off the table in tactical reserves before the game begins so that when the transport sets up in ambush on the table you can declare them embarked?
"Ambush" is just a special tactical reserves as they set up mid turn. So it follows all rules for tactical reserves.
It's a pretty janky attempt at a workaround. You couldn't even do it if it was a unit of Tallarn infantry trying to jump in the transport.
Brotherjulian wrote: I've read every entry in this thread and do see the points being made pro and con. IMHO, if the strat intended to allow ogryns, psykers, what-have-you then it would say so. It says three Tallarn units. It seems some people want to harp on a perceived technicality to get by with something clearly unintended.
That thinking is asinine and unhelpful.
I could declare I feel it is a "technicality" and "clearly unintended" to force my models to roll to hit at all, they should automatically hit. It's also a "technicality" and "clearly unintended" for all my models to only have 1 wound, they should have 20.
It's not a "technicality", it's how the rules are actually written and how they should be played.
If it was unintended, they would issue an errata or special snowflake FAQ. Simple as that.
Drager wrote: The unit is set up in ambush. At this point it being set up triggers the transport rule. This is all explained above.
All the transport rule does is allow a unit to begin the game embarked on a transport, and you must declare the unit is embarked when it is set up. Stratagem choose 3 tallarn units to be SET UP in ambush. So per the rules when I set up a transport in ambush I have to declare the Ogryns embarked on the transport. Where is the transport? In ambush. Where are the ogryns? Inside the transport, in ambush. The only rules about units inside of a transport not counting for something only apply to units inside of transports ON THE TABLE.
Problem 2 let's say I ignore the wording of the stratagem and assume SET UP means deployed on the table. Ok so where is the magic holding box rule? I put 3 units in Ambush, I deploy the rest of my army on the table except the Ogryns. The game begins...where are the Ogryns? Destroyed because I forgot to deploy them, they have no rule allowing them to be in tactical reserves. So they're either in their on tactical reserves which won't allow them to jump on the transport when it hits the table mid game because they are in a different tactical reserves because they can't be in ambush.
Or they're in the transport in ambush which violates the stratagem, or they are being held in some magic transport box the game has no rules for.
Wagguy80 wrote: Where is the transport? In ambush. Where are the ogryns? Inside the transport, in ambush. The only rules about units inside of a transport not counting for something only apply to units inside of transports ON THE TABLE.
And the rules allow the ogryns to be embarked on that transport.
Wagguy80 wrote: Where is the transport? In ambush. Where are the ogryns? Inside the transport, in ambush. The only rules about units inside of a transport not counting for something only apply to units inside of transports ON THE TABLE.
And the rules allow the ogryns to be embarked on that transport.
Yes the rules allow the ogryns to be embarked on the transport but the stratagem does not. 3 units and all tallarn in Ambush. Per the transport rules when a unit is set up. So same time. When I put the transport in ambush I must declare the ogryns embarked on the transport. Now I have 4 units being held in ambush, and 1 of them is not tallarn.
Units in transports don't go in some magic "transport" box.
So once again, please show me where any rules are being broken:
Here is the complete sequence of actions.
It is deployment.
I announce "I use the Ambush stratagem."
I then "Choose up to three TALLARN units to be set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield (only one of these units can have the VEHICLE keyword)."
I then decide to set up a Stormlord and two Tallarn Company Commanders (because why not).
I invoke the rule from the rulebook: "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up."
I declare that the "units" that "start the battle embarked within it" are my Ogryns.
And I say "that's more than three units and they aren't all Tallarn, and this is the common sense edition of 40k" and we're back to page one of the thread.
Either everyone can waste internet air repeating one side or t'other or they can feed back to GW via the email address and hopefully they'll FAQ soon for a final decision one way or t'other.
As per the rules you just typed " - declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up."
So it's not something you do after the fact. So you are somehow declaring to be putting 2 units of tallarn troops, and a tallarn stormlord with ogryns embark in ambush...and somehow at the same time not violate the restrictions in the stratagem which is 3 units, and all tallarn.
End result if you use the rules as written you cannot.
Wagguy80 wrote: As per the rules you just typed " - declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up."
So it's not something you do after the fact. So you are somehow declaring to be putting 2 units of tallarn troops, and a tallarn stormlord with ogryns embark in ambush...and somehow at the same time not violate the restrictions in the stratagem which is 3 units, and all tallarn.
End result if you use the rules as written you cannot.
Wagguy80 wrote: As per the rules you just typed " - declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up."
So it's not something you do after the fact. So you are somehow declaring to be putting 2 units of tallarn troops, and a tallarn stormlord with ogryns embark in ambush...and somehow at the same time not violate the restrictions in the stratagem which is 3 units, and all tallarn.
End result if you use the rules as written you cannot.
But they are totally different rules that happen simultaneously. By your logic you can never re-roll to hit because the rule that allows you to re-roll happens after you roll to hit.
Wagguy80 wrote: As per the rules you just typed " - declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up."
So it's not something you do after the fact. So you are somehow declaring to be putting 2 units of tallarn troops, and a tallarn stormlord with ogryns embark in ambush...and somehow at the same time not violate the restrictions in the stratagem which is 3 units, and all tallarn.
End result if you use the rules as written you cannot.
But they are totally different rules that happen simultaneously. By your logic you can never re-roll to hit because the rule that allows you to re-roll happens after you roll to hit.
Given the result isn't decided until after the re-roll, that's simply inaccurate. Not to mention a fallacious comparison.
As you say, two rules come into play at the same time. You say a vehicle can transport things. The Ambush Stratagem says only three Tallarn units may Ambush. So you have to reconcile the two rules... this means no non-Tallarn units can be aboard any Tallarn Transports chosen. Doing otherwise and putting an Ogryn aboard violates one of the rules so doesn't work.
So it doesn't matter if it's ok with the BRB to put Ogryns in a Stormlord. The Codex Stratagem is specific on what is allowed in ambush.
Completely untrue. Specific Overrides Generic, and in this case nothing in the generic rule is being overridden. Again, please point to the part in the sequence I have posted three times now that is having rules broken. Our Glorious Benevolent Overlord yakface has a great post about this though: yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that! As he says, "Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict." There is no conflict here. One rule says you SET UP in a different place, another rule activates when you SET UP, regardless of where it is being SET UP.
You've also not addressed the fact your previous logic means you can never benefit from re-roll auras.
Firstly I am deeply impressed by BaconCatBug and others in here getting so adamant about their position. Much like trench warfare.
However, it seems from my read of a surprisingly long 8-page discussion that there are two parties. The first part is of the opinion the rule allows a <key worded> (tallaran) model to set up an ambush. This model is also a transport and thus can carry models and those models are declared at set up. This seems clear concise and cited by the book as well as designer notes.
The second part says no because this overrides unit count and lack of special rule being attributed to the units. This is also a fair point to consider. However, this doesnt seem to be supported by anything other than if you don't have permission you don't do it.
Whereas a case has been made that you have permission and is supported. Honestly, we are really arguing about the number of command points spent, and the ability to transport one specific unit. Since there is no limit cap on the purchase of it.
It seems fair that a transport setup in ambush would also have the party intended inside of it, because for the intended party inside to come running across the field later just seems like an incompetent command - and honestly not setting up an ambush.
So it doesn't matter if it's ok with the BRB to put Ogryns in a Stormlord. The Codex Stratagem is specific on what is allowed in ambush.
Completely untrue. Specific Overrides Generic, and in this case nothing in the generic rule is being overridden. Again, please point to the part in the sequence I have posted three times now that is having rules broken. Our Glorious Benevolent Overlord yakface has a great post about this though: yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that! As he says, "Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict." There is no conflict here. One rule says you SET UP in a different place, another rule activates when you SET UP, regardless of where it is being SET UP.
You've also not addressed the fact your previous logic means you can never benefit from re-roll auras.
Wouldn't you consider the number of units an the faction requirement a restriction that overrides/narrows the permission granted by the stratagem and the core transport rules?
The stratagem does grant you permission to special deployment options, but restricts this special deployment both to 3 units (not drops) and the faction Tallarn keyword.
The shell game argument (set up in transport which itself happens to be in reserve) interesting, but unconvincing to me:
- Embarked in Transport and Reserves/Ambush are not mutually exclusive states or distinct places units can be kept in. A unit can be both in reserve and embarked in a transport, e.g. Drop Pod Assault.
- Every other instance where rules permit special deployment for transports do explicitly grant passengers the right to be in reserve.
- The ogryns in this argument can be in a transport, but do not have permission to be in reserve themselves.
- There is no inherited/implicit permission for passengers to be in reserves.
- The Statagem is meant to represent light skirmish troops outflanking. Transports, certainly superheavy transports and non-Tallarn are simply not RAI. Now, you can certainly bend that beyond the intended use, but you are still missing permission for passengers of a transport to be in reserve.
So it doesn't matter if it's ok with the BRB to put Ogryns in a Stormlord. The Codex Stratagem is specific on what is allowed in ambush.
Completely untrue. Specific Overrides Generic, and in this case nothing in the generic rule is being overridden. Again, please point to the part in the sequence I have posted three times now that is having rules broken. Our Glorious Benevolent Overlord yakface has a great post about this though: yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that! As he says, "Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict." There is no conflict here. One rule says you SET UP in a different place, another rule activates when you SET UP, regardless of where it is being SET UP.
You've also not addressed the fact your previous logic means you can never benefit from re-roll auras.
Wouldn't you consider the number of units an the faction requirement a restriction that overrides/narrows the permission granted by the stratagem and the core transport rules?
The stratagem does grant you permission to special deployment options, but restricts this special deployment both to 3 units (not drops) and the faction Tallarn keyword.
The shell game argument (set up in transport which itself happens to be in reserve) interesting, but unconvincing to me:
- Embarked in Transport and Reserves/Ambush are not mutually exclusive states or distinct places units can be kept in. A unit can be both in reserve and embarked in a transport, e.g. Drop Pod Assault.
- Every other instance where rules permit special deployment for transports do explicitly grant passengers the right to be in reserve.
- The ogryns in this argument can be in a transport, but do not have permission to be in reserve themselves.
- There is no inherited/implicit permission for passengers to be in reserves.
- The Statagem is meant to represent light skirmish troops outflanking. Transports, certainly superheavy transports and non-Tallarn are simply not RAI. Now, you can certainly bend that beyond the intended use, but you are still missing permission for passengers of a transport to be in reserve.
Would a transport that could fly then only be allowed to take infantry that can fly, as it does not confer any abilities to the unit embarked on it?
Lithuex wrote: ...
Would a transport that could fly then only be allowed to take infantry that can fly, as it does not confer any abilities to the unit embarked on it?
That would be a nice strawman, if that hadn't been beaten to death already.
BCB stated restrictions override permissions, yet the argument only works if you play obtuse and ignore the restrictions of the stratagem.
When you set up a unit inside the transport, you place them off the table, but mark which transport on the battlefield contains them.
When you set up a unit in reserves, you also place them off the table. Note that you need explict permission to do this.
After you deploy your army, it should be clear which unit has what status.
In the example, the transport is off the table in reserves, which it has permission to. Fine.
However, the Ogryns lack this permission. Ergo they cannot be held in reserves, even if you have a transport for them which may be in reserve.
Contrast this with a drop pod and a unit of space marines.
The drop pod is in reserves using the permission it comes with.
The unit of space marines is embarked, but also has explicit permission to be in reserves.
Lithuex wrote: ... Would a transport that could fly then only be allowed to take infantry that can fly, as it does not confer any abilities to the unit embarked on it?
That would be a nice strawman, if that hadn't been beaten to death already.
BCB stated restrictions override permissions, yet the argument only works if you play obtuse and ignore the restrictions of the stratagem.
The stratagem is not restricting the rule that allows units to be set up inside a transport. Only the transport itself is being set up "in ambush". Any units embarked on it as per the BRB rule do not interact with that rule at all, nor are they set up "in ambush".
And it's not a strawman, your logic dictates that a wave serpent or stormraven can never carry models that cannot FLY.
Lithuex wrote: ...
Would a transport that could fly then only be allowed to take infantry that can fly, as it does not confer any abilities to the unit embarked on it?
That would be a nice strawman, if that hadn't been beaten to death already.
BCB stated restrictions override permissions, yet the argument only works if you play obtuse and ignore the restrictions of the stratagem.
The stratagem is not restricting the rule that allows units to be set up inside a transport. Only the transport itself is being set up "in ambush". Any units embarked on it as per the BRB rule do not interact with that rule at all, nor are they set up "in ambush".
And it's not a strawman, your logic dictates that a wave serpent or stormraven can never carry models that cannot FLY.
Actually, it's a completely different case (movement vs deployment) and I feel it's just being put up here to muddy the water.
Transport rules clearly state which units may embark and disembark, whey they may do so and how it impacts movement.
What we are talking about here is the ability to stay in reserves and use special deployment.
BRB p. 215 "Tactical Reserves" states that "Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit in Reserve etc. in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. ..."
To stay in reserve and arrive as reinforcements, the UNIT needs to have an ability to be set up in reserves.
The ogryns do NOT have such an ability, ergo they are not eligible to arrive from reserves, even embarked on a transport.
The bespoke rules for every transport that comes with a reserve ability clearly grants explict permission to passenger units that otherwise lack this permission.
The rules for each stratagem that permits putting transports in reserve, also clearly grants explict permission to passenger units that otherwise lack this permission.
I've read the claim that this is just a reminder, but think that fact it is a necessary part of the rules to avoid exactly the problem the ogryns have here.
Stephanius wrote: To stay in reserve and arrive as reinforcements, the UNIT needs to have an ability to be set up in reserves. The ogryns do NOT have such an ability, ergo they are not eligible to arrive from reserves, even embarked on a transport
They do, it's called the main transport rules.
At this point this thread is pointless. Either GW don't issue an FAQ, in which case I was right, GW issues and FAQ confirming the RaW, in which case I was right, or GW issues a special snowflake FAQ to say the opposite, in which case I was also right.
It's almost like following the rules as written leads you to the correct conclusion.
This is why I am a RaW absolutist, because it means no matter how GW decide to rectify things, I am correct in every instance.
Stephanius wrote: To stay in reserve and arrive as reinforcements, the UNIT needs to have an ability to be set up in reserves.
The ogryns do NOT have such an ability, ergo they are not eligible to arrive from reserves, even embarked on a transport
They do, it's called the main transport rules.
The main transport rules cover what transports do in general, during the game and in deployment. Without anything else said, that is clearly normal deployment on the table, not deployment in reserves which isn't covered in the core rules. The reserve rules have additional, separate requirements that you have to meet to use them.
The Drop Pod Assault and Cloud-Strike rules do explictly grant permission to passenger units to satisfy this requirement.
You can fudge over the the lack of of permission and hope your opponent doesn't realize it, but it's not RAW.
An SM or Eldar player can point to page and paragraph for permission. All handwaving aside, you cannot.
And as has been stated multiple times by your logic if I put a Guardian in a Wave Serpent I am breaking the rules because a Wave Serpent can FLY and a Guardian cannot. Or a Wave Serpent can move more than a Guardians M value and thus "breaks the rules".
So, you have two choices, either you break all skimmer transports, or you follow the rules and allow ogryns to embark on the transport as per the rulebook rule.
Pick one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stephanius wrote: The main transport rules cover what transports do in general, during the game and in deployment. Without anything else said, that is clearly normal deployment on the table, not deployment in reserves which isn't covered in the core rules.
This is categorically false. Please show me in the rulebook where it says the transport rules only apply when on the battlefield please.
BaconCatBug wrote: And as has been stated multiple times by your logic if I put a Guardian in a Wave Serpent I am breaking the rules because a Wave Serpent can FLY and a Guardian cannot. Or a Wave Serpent can move more than a Guardians M value and thus "breaks the rules".
So, you have two choices, either you break all skimmer transports, or you follow the rules and allow ogryns to embark on the transport as per the rulebook rule.
Pick one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stephanius wrote: The main transport rules cover what transports do in general, during the game and in deployment. Without anything else said, that is clearly normal deployment on the table, not deployment in reserves which isn't covered in the core rules.
This is categorically false. Please show me in the rulebook where it says the transport rules only apply when on the battlefield please.
not a fair comparison.
Of course under normal circumstances Ogryns can go in a transport that allows it. Under normal circumstances Guardians can go in a Wave serpent.
However when you want to do something out of the ordinary deployment there is a rule that that explains the interaction of the unit inside.
Cloudstrike: allowing a unit inside to reserve with the Wave Serpent
Drop Pod Assault : allowing units to go in reserve within the Pod that normally couldnt
(Taking it a step further) Land speeder storms allowing units to shoot out of it as well as Open deck doing the same on superheavies.
The Tallern Strategum doesnt give these allowences so i think precedence has been set that it would need to include the allowence.
GW seems to be pretty clear in there rule design that they will tell you how the occupents of a transport can interact above and beyond normal embarkation rules if they want that to happen.
zedsdead wrote: GW seems to be pretty clear in there rule design that they will tell you how the occupents of a transport can interact above and beyond normal embarkation rules if they want that to happen.
And yet again you're making up things. Reminder text doesn't make an unrelated rule suddenly not work.
And yet again you're making up things. Reminder text doesn't make an unrelated rule suddenly not work.
Ambush - Tallarn Stratagem
Use this Stratagem during deployment. Choose up to three Tallarn units to be set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield (only one of these units can have the Vehicle keyword).. At the end of any of your Movement phases these units can strike from hiding - set each of them up wholly within 7" of any battlefield edge and more than 9" from any enemy models. The units are considered to have moved their maximum distance.
Astra Militarum Codex + FAQ
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit in Reserve etc. in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. ...
Matchted Play - Tactical Reserves - BRB p. 215.
The Tactical Reserve rule REQUIRES each UNIT to have an ability, i.e. an explit rule that permits it to be in reserve. Which makes sense, since there is no general permission to leave any units in reserve.
Clearly, when you place Ogryns in a TALLARN transport that you pushed into reserve with Tallarn Ambush, you have an engineered conflict between the transport and reserve rules.
As you say, Transport and Reserve rules are unrelated. The ability to embark on a transport is in no way related to the ability/permission to be in reserves.
Indeed, it is fair to say that the transport rules do neither permit nor restrict Ogryn Stowaways, since the transport rules do not interact with reserve rules.
Therefore, after we do the BCB shell game, the Ogryns are caught without a permission to be in reserve.
Cloudstrike - Craftworlds Stratagem
Use this Stratagem during deployment if you have not used the Webway Strike Stratagem (p.119) this battle. You can set up an ASURANI VEHICLE unit from your army that can FLY in the clouds instead of placing it on the battlefield. It can descend at the end of any of your Movement phases - set it up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy units. If you use this Stratagem on a transport, all units embarked inside it remain so when it is set up in the clouds.
To avoid this situation in rules that do take the conflict between reserves and transports into account, we have an explict permission for the units being transported, which does satisfy the requirement postulated in the Tactical Reserves rule.
I haven't seen any arguments in support of the claim that this permission is redundant and just "reminder text". Until such arguments are presented, I'll consider this hand-waving.
While Tallarn Ambush doesn't consider transports at all, I'd be totally fine with someone picking three Tallarn units, say two Infantry and one Transport, pushing them into reserves with Tallarn Ambush and then declaring that the infantry units embark on the transport.
In this case we have THREE (3), TALLARN Units, each neatly with it's own clear explict permission to be in reserves.
Only if we ignore the reserve rules or with confident hand waving declare them satisfied by unrelated transport rules, we end up with a carefully engineered rule conflict.
That would be when permission for THREE (3) Tallarn Units gets ONE (1) non-Tallarn unit AND THREE (3) Tallarn units to arrive as reinforcements.
Where they Ogryns go from there is anyones guess, but they wouldn't go on a table I'm playing at without proper rules support.
PS:
... set each of them up wholly within 7" of any battlefield edge...
Popcorn arguments aside - better not buy any sponsons for that hypothetical Stormlord with Ogryn stowaways. While I don't have a model on hand to measure, I think it is just under 6" wide without the sponsons. ;-]
There seems to be one specific idea in contention here: Where is a Unit Embarked in a Transport located?
BaconCatBug contents that a unit Embarked in a Transport is in a "Transport" location that is effectively nowhere. Others content that a unit Embarked in a Transport is in the same location as that Transport. One of these two lines of though is correct and resolves the question in that parties favor.
I find the nowhere Transport Location to be a hard one to accept. The Transport rules spend an entire paragraph making sure you understand that units in a Transport cannot interact with other units expect as stated by the Transport's rules or explicitly stated so by the Unit's rules. It especially notes that rules that affect units with a certain range never affect units Embarked in a Transport. These are rather pointless rules if the units are not, in some small way, actually on the Battlefield.
Furthermore, I find the contention that units Embarked In Transports to not be on the Battlefield for Tactical Reserves to be not the interpretation of anyone I seen or heard of playing the game. If this is true, it would actually be an illegal deployment to have more than half your units deployed in Transports even if every transport was deployed on the battlefield!
This being the case, I find the Three Tallarn Units only camp to be much more persuasive and far more likely to get the GW stamp of approval.
You are misunderstanding my argument. The unit is not "nowhere", it is "set up" embarked upon the transport, as per the Transport Rules sidebar. It doesn't matter where the transport itself is, all that matters is where the unit inside is, which is "set up" inside the transport.
The BRB don't care where the transport is being set up, simply that it is being set up.
You must declare when you select the Stormlord as a choice to be set up for the Ambush stratagem that the Ogryns are embarked. Which makes it an illegal selection period.
So the ONLY way to place the Stormlord or any transport that is Tallarn in ambush is without any non-tallarn embarked. Otherwise it's an illegal choice of units.
As I said before whether or not Ogryns can ride in stormlord is moot. They can, but if they do you can't place them in Ambush per the stratagem.
I won't discuss this any further. It doesn't need a FAQ it's plain as day and RAW.
Wagguy80 wrote: You must declare when you select the Stormlord as a choice to be set up for the Ambush stratagem that the Ogryns are embarked. Which makes it an illegal selection period.
So the ONLY way to place the Stormlord or any transport that is Tallarn in ambush is without any non-tallarn embarked. Otherwise it's an illegal choice of units.
As I said before whether or not Ogryns can ride in stormlord is moot. They can, but if they do you can't place them in Ambush per the stratagem.
I won't discuss this any further. It doesn't need a FAQ it's plain as day and RAW.
Indeed. Trying to comfort other rules to get around the super, SUPER simple "Three Tallarn units" restriction is preposterous. RAW is damn clear. RAI isn't even in doubt. Just read the words and follow them...
Wagguy80 wrote: You must declare when you select the Stormlord as a choice to be set up for the Ambush stratagem that the Ogryns are embarked. Which makes it an illegal selection period.
Again, you're making up rules where there are none. Please point to me in the rules where it says "The embarked unit must be a specific faction."
The Ambush stratagem does not deny or contradict the main rulebook, so you can't make up rules to match your own desires. House rule it all you want, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
BaconCatBug wrote: You are misunderstanding my argument. The unit is not "nowhere", it is "set up" embarked upon the transport, as per the Transport Rules sidebar. It doesn't matter where the transport itself is, all that matters is where the unit inside is, which is "set up" inside the transport.
The BRB don't care where the transport is being set up, simply that it is being set up.
True. The Transport rules do not take reserves into account.
Wagguy80 wrote: You must declare when you select the Stormlord as a choice to be set up for the Ambush stratagem that the Ogryns are embarked. Which makes it an illegal selection period.
Again, you're making up rules where there are none. Please point to me in the rules where it says "The embarked unit must be a specific faction."
The Ambush stratagem does not deny or contradict the main rulebook, so you can't make up rules to match your own desires. House rule it all you want, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
You are ignoring the requirement for each individual unit to have permission to be in reserves and thereby arrive at a false conclusion.
- Every unit that can do today's equivalent of Deep Strike, Infiltrate or Outflank has permission to be in reserve in it's rules.
- Every stratagem or other rule we've seen that permits deployment via reserves has permission to be in reserve for a specific amount of units, often with additional requirements.
- Every stratagem or other rule that explictly permits transports in reseve provides permission to be in reserve for the passengers.
This isn't just some other similar stratagem with helpful text about a reserved transport, it's every way a unit may be in reserve, all to satisfy the requirement of each unit's permission in the reserve rules.
No reserves permission = no ticket = no mutant stowaways = illegal deployment.
In a permissive ruleset you are only allowed to do what you are explictly permitted to do.
You do not get to ignore the requirment for explict permission for each unit to be in reserve.
If you think you have an argument as to how the core transport rules provide permission to be in reserve, please present it. Thank you!
Stephanius wrote: If you think you have an argument as to how the core transport rules provide permission to be in reserve, please present it. Thank you!
I have. Multiple times. You sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALA doesn't make you right.
Stephanius wrote: If you think you have an argument as to how the core transport rules provide permission to be in reserve, please present it. Thank you!
I have. Multiple times. You sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALA doesn't make you right.
You have claimed that the transport rules do not take into account where a transport is set up. I agree with you on that part.
I never claimed you are misreading the transport rules.
You are however ignoring the reserve rules. Nothing in the transport rules exempts you from the requirements of the reserve rules.
Stephanius wrote: You are however ignoring the reserve rules. Nothing in the transport rules exempts you from the requirements of the reserve rules.
The reserve rules don't care about embarked units. Ogryns inside a stormlord are not "in ambush", they are embarked on the transport. It doesn't matter where the transport is, the rules don't care.
zedsdead wrote: GW seems to be pretty clear in there rule design that they will tell you how the occupents of a transport can interact above and beyond normal embarkation rules if they want that to happen.
And yet again you're making up things. Reminder text doesn't make an unrelated rule suddenly not work.
feel free to show me in the rules where this phantom reminder text is. You can make up reasons to dismiss it but none of the rules i listed above are a case of "reminder text" i know it suits your needs to call it such.. but its not. Its part of the allowence rule. Tallern doesnt have it. So no.
Stephanius wrote: You are however ignoring the reserve rules. Nothing in the transport rules exempts you from the requirements of the reserve rules.
The reserve rules don't care about embarked units. Ogryns inside a stormlord are not "in ambush", they are embarked on the transport. It doesn't matter where the transport is, the rules don't care.
actually they do care... thats the reason why your Phantom reminder text exists.
Stephanius wrote: You are however ignoring the reserve rules. Nothing in the transport rules exempts you from the requirements of the reserve rules.
The reserve rules don't care about embarked units. Ogryns inside a stormlord are not "in ambush", they are embarked on the transport. It doesn't matter where the transport is, the rules don't care.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
It's a bit sad really.
Clearly, the reserve rules require each unit that will appear as reinforcements to have that ability. There is no provision in the reserve rules for exempting embarked units from this requirement. Ergo, your statement is false.
Your entire plan appears to be to talk your opponent into conflating embarkation and reserves (or flipping the table) while you are blatantly having the ogryns hitch a ride and arrive in an outflank position, somehow without going through reserves.
Stephanius wrote: Clearly, the reserve rules require each unit that will appear as reinforcements to have that ability.
[Citation Needed]
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit in Reserve etc. in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. ...
Matched Play - Tactical Reserves - BRB p. 215.
Here you go. As previously posted, being in reserves is an ability/rule units have.
There is no provision in the reserve rules for exempting embarked units from this requirement. Ergo, your statement is false.
Yes, there is, in the Transport Sidebar.
That is both false and illogical. The transport rules are core rules which do not in any way mention reserves. The reserve rules are advanced rules, so logically they could include a provision for embarked units, but do not.
In fact, every known instance of units arriving via reserves, including transports, supports my position that explicit permission to be held in reserves is required.
Stephanius wrote: In fact, every known instance of units arriving via reserves, including transports, supports my position that explicit permission to be held in reserves is required.
So by that logic, any transport that doesn't explicitly give the embarked unit the ability to move X" (where X is the M of the transport) breaks the game?
Stephanius wrote: In fact, every known instance of units arriving via reserves, including transports, supports my position that explicit permission to be held in reserves is required.
So by that logic, any transport that doesn't explicitly give the embarked unit the ability to move X" (where X is the M of the transport) breaks the game?
No, because whilst embarked the models aren't on the Battlefield to be moved, affect things or be affected. You remove them and place them back when they disembark. That's in the Transport rules. ;-)
Stephanius wrote: In fact, every known instance of units arriving via reserves, including transports, supports my position that explicit permission to be held in reserves is required.
So by that logic, any transport that doesn't explicitly give the embarked unit the ability to move X" (where X is the M of the transport) breaks the game?
No, because whilst embarked the models aren't on the Battlefield to be moved, affect things or be affected. You remove them and place them back when they disembark. That's in the Transport rules. ;-)
And likewise, "whilst embarked the models aren't in Ambush to be moved, affect things or be affected. You remove them and place them back when they disembark. That's in the Transport rules. ;-)"
Stephanius wrote: In fact, every known instance of units arriving via reserves, including transports, supports my position that explicit permission to be held in reserves is required.
So by that logic, any transport that doesn't explicitly give the embarked unit the ability to move X" (where X is the M of the transport) breaks the game?
No, that is a false comparison. The difference is that the transport rules do not require the embarked units to match their transports movement range.
Conversely, the reserve rules do require that each reserved unit has to have the ability to enter reserves. This isn't just idle talk, as demonstrated by each known reserveable unit having such a rule.
Which incidentally is the requirement that your illegal deployment violates:
1) Reserve Rules require each unit to have an ability/rule to enter the battlefield as reinforcements.
2) A Stratagem adds this ability to THREE TALLARN units.
3) You chose a Tallarn Stormlord as one of these units
4) you declare Non-Tallarn Ogryn to be embarked in the reserved transport, because
a) they can embark in a transport (TRUE)
AND
b) they have implicit permission to be in reserve via transport rules (FALSE)
OR
c) totally don't need permission like any other unit in reserves, because they are do cute (FALSE).
For 4 to evaluate to TRUE, its components need to be true.
4b is FALSE, so 4 evaluates to FALSE.
Ergo, 3 =/= 4; non-Tallarn =/= Tallarn.
If you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore that...that is where the game breaks.
Stephanius wrote: Conversely, the reserve rules do require that each reserved unit has to have the ability to enter reserves. This isn't just idle talk, as demonstrated by each known reserveable unit having such a rule
And yet you offer no proof that it is anything but reminder/convenience text, because there is none. There is no global overarching rule you can point to. You are making up rules where none exist.
Either way GWFAQs it, I am following the letter of the law (RaW) and am thus objectively correct. Either GW will enforce RaW or make a Special Snowflake FAQ ala Blood Grail and Index Pask. That's the great advantage of actually playing a game by the rules rather than house ruling it or trying to argue RaI.
Stephanius wrote: Conversely, the reserve rules do require that each reserved unit has to have the ability to enter reserves. This isn't just idle talk, as demonstrated by each known reserveable unit having such a rule
And yet you offer no proof that it is anything but reminder/convenience text, because there is none. There is no global overarching rule you can point to. You are making up rules where none exist.
Either way GWFAQs it, I am following the letter of the law (RaW) and am thus objectively correct. Either GW will enforce RaW or make a Special Snowflake FAQ ala Blood Grail and Index Pask. That's the great advantage of actually playing a game by the rules rather than house ruling it or trying to argue RaI.
Except FAQing "Three Tallarn units" to say "yes, we really, really do mean only 3, only Tallarn units, and figured those three words ably covered it" wouldn't be a "special snowflake" thing. It wouldn't be changing the rules, only clarifying them. If so you would never have been correct and playing by the RAW, objectively, subjectively, or any other -ively. I simply cannot believe those three words need FAQing but here we are.
Its a loophole in the rulebook, which BCB is extremely fond of and excels at creating.
His argument is logical, althought its a complete exploitation of poorly written rule - there is a loophole in RAW that doesnt clearly define the locale of the units embarked in a transport. While embarked are units are 'off battlefield' but are not necesarilly in reserve locale.
What BCB is claiming is that because the rulebook does not specify that units inside a transport share the locale of the said transport, you cannot prevent a unit from entering into a transport that is in reserves. It doesn't matter if the unit in question has the ability to enter reserves. The unit is not entering reserves but entering a transport.
He then goes to dismiss the special rule that certain transports that must/may start in reserves by claiming that it is merely reciting what a transport can do from the BRB, and not granting any special permissions as to what it can do - aka the reminder text, because the transport rule does not cover the interaction when a transport is in reserve. This somehow then spills over into the argument "it is not granting any unit any special rules/abilities. by extension of your argument, units that dont have fly keyword cannot enter flying transports because for some reason riding in a transport must have matching ruleset that allows you to follow the movement rules of the said vehicle." (This portion i still dont understand the rationale behind it).
Its an argument of innocent until proven guilty. He is exploiting "you dont have the permission to override a rule unless it specifically conflicts one another. If it isnt a conflict but rather same wording, it is reminding you there is such a rule, and not creating a special exception because it doesnt tell you a more specific version of a rule doesnt override the general one that exists in the brb." It is fallacious and malicious interpretation of the "Law aka RAW" but not completely illogical. Hes exploiting the lack of specific phrases that tells you when a rule is more specific, it overrides the general rule in the BRB.
BCB is correct in the ruling. Tactical Reserves in the matched play rules only states that units have the ability to use 'deep strike' rules. And that no less than half of the units in your army must be deployed on the battlefield
Rule here:
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere. Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round counts as having been destroyed.
The Tallarn Stratagem allows you to place 3 TALLARN units in ambush. Following it's restrictions of how far from the table edge and enemy they have to be.
Rule for transport here:
TRANSPORTS
Some models are noted as being a TRANSPORT on their datasheet – these vehicles ferry warriors to the front line, providing them with speed and protection. The following rules describe how units can embark and disembark from transports, and how they are used to move their passengers across the battlefield. Note that a unit cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn.
Transport Capacity: All transports have a transport capacity listed on their datasheet. This determines how many friendly models, and of what type, they can carry. A model’s transport capacity can never be exceeded.
When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up.
Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport.
Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.
If a transport is destroyed, any units embarked within it immediately disembark (see below) before the transport model is removed, but you must then roll one dice for each model you just set up on the battlefield. For each roll of 1, a model that disembarked (your choice) is slain.
Disembark:Any unit that begins its Movement phase embarked within a transport can disembark before the transport moves. When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield so that all of its models are within 3" of the transport and not within 1" of any enemy models – any disembarking model that cannot be set up in this way is slain.
Units that disembark can then act normally (move, shoot, charge, fight, etc.) during the remainder of their turn. Note though, that even if you don’t move disembarking units further in your Movement phase, they still count as having moved for any rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons (pg 180).
Note that the rules stating units embarked on a vehicle is actually before the EMBARK rules, it's only requirement being that you must declare that unit is embarked in the vehicle when it's set up.
Hence we return back to the Tactical Reserves ruling above it.
Make no mistake, these are the rules from the CORE RULEBOOK word for word. There is nothing wrong with BCB's following of the ruleset. He is following the rules as written.
Does it sound cheese? Maybe. Could other armies do this? of course they could. Is it illegal? Absolutely no way is it illegal
Also. for those that thought that this would fall under reinforcements? The unit has already been purchased for the army, in no way are these considered reinforcements
I would just like to add, from my reading of the rule, either any unit can be in the transport in ambush, or non could.
Ambush - Tallarn Stratagem Use this Stratagem during deployment. Choose up to three Tallarn units to be set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield (only one of these units can have the Vehicle keyword).. At the end of any of your Movement phases these units can strike from hiding - set each of them up wholly within 7" of any battlefield edge and more than 9" from any enemy models. The units are considered to have moved their maximum distance.
If you'll notice, in addition to being in ambush when you arrive from ambush all of the units must be placed as described in the text above. The stratagem offers no exception to units in transports that are ambushing.
That means any units using the stratagem to ambush cannot be in transports because it is impossible to be in the transport and follow the stratagems rules for setting up when they strike from hiding.
Therefore either
the rules work as BCB says and any unit can be ambushed in inside of the transport,
OR
the rules work as Stephanius suggests and no unit can ever be in a transport that is ambushing, because only units using ambush would be able to embark on it while it is in ambush, but the ambush rule itself would prevent them per above.
BaconCatBug wrote: Following the rules is not "abusing a loophole", it's following the rules.
A loophole that only works if you ignore advanced rules is a very poor loophole. Laughable in fact, except for the entertainment value! =]
To summarize:
Transport rules deal only with units embarked in transport on the battlefield, which is logical, because there are no reserves in the core rules.
There is no restriction against embarking in a transport in reserves. True, but logical and irrelevant. There is no general permission to be in reserves, so a restriction is redundant.
There is also no permission for transport passengers to ignore reserve rules or any other mention of reserves. Again logical and expected.
Now, on to reserve rules. Since the transport happens to be in reserve and the whole shell game's objective is to smuggle an uneligible unit through reserves, reserves are clearly relevant.
Matched Play - Tactical Reserves - BRB p. 215:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit in Reserve etc. in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. ...
Now, unlike prior editions, we cannot just hold back a unit and have it move into the game from the board edge because we feel like it.
Here is what that rule says:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, ...
Beyond what the core rules permit you to do, here come exceptions.
... many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit in Reserve etc.
Those exceptions are unit abilities. In other words a rule that grants the unit permission to do something.
... in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. ...
In this case, permit the unit to arrive on the battlefield AFTER the game has started.
This sounds very basic, and it is basic. The first rule sentence in Tactical Reserves tells us that each unit, that can arrive mid-game, will have explict permission.
In addition to this permission, many units do also have alternate deployment permissions, such as anywhere, 9" away from enemy units.
Since only units with the ability to be in reserve can be in reserve, obviously, units without the explicit ability to be in reserves cannot be in reserves. That is really not complicated.
In BCBs shell game, the ogryns begin the game embarked in a transport which is in reserve. That is why BOTH reserve and transport rules are relevant.
Does BCBs shell game place the ogryns in reserve? Absolutely, the rules define reserve as arriving on the battlefield mid-game, which they are meant to do. This is an Ogryn taxi idea after all.
Do the ogyrns have an ability/rule that permits them to be in reserves? No. Ergo they cannot be set up in a reserved transport. The end.
It's very simple. EVERY UNIT that can enter the game via Reserves and EVERY STRATAGEM that permits this grants the specific units the permission to be in reserves.
If it would be only a stratagem or two dealing with transports, we could maybe find some wiggle room, but every unit that can DS, outflank or infiltrate has a permission to be in reserves in it's datasheet.
This is not an accident. It also has NOTHING to do with transport rules per se.
It only becomes difficult when you arbitrarily and unilaterally get to decide that some rules are not rules IF they would stop abuse of a perceived loophole.
Just because one doesn't perceive the Reserve rules consciously before doesn't mean they aren't rules.
tl:dr RAW, units inside the transport in reserve is inside a transport exclusively and not inside a transport in reserve. RAI, transport units can only carry passengers in reserves if it is specifically allowed to do so.
Original Post:
A better argument to this is to cite "the rulebook does not explicitly tell you that you must override the rules in the BRB when a codex, aka more specific, presents a rule that directly contradicts the said rule in the BRB. It is the general consensus that we interpret said contradiction to be intended, and it does provide a special exception to the rule in BRB. This is what is commonly referred to as RAI - clearly, the auther had intended such alterations to a rule, if not would not have written it at all. Here, we try to interpret the authors decision to specifically contradict the existing, therefore it should have the merit of being able to overwrite the said rule."
Then by the extension of this argument, one can also begin to question the intent of what is currently being referred to as a "reminder text." Did the author truly mean the said texts to be a reminder of the rules in the BRB, or was it intended as a "more specific" version of the rule to the exisitng ruleset? If former, did the author forget to add a reminder text for all applicable units in question? If not, where did the author draw the line in which 'to remind' and 'not to remind?'
It is important to note that all unit entries with the transport rule that may and/or must begin the game in reserves, aka 'in reserves', has these so called "reminder text" that specifies that said transport may begin the game with units embarked in it. The rules for transports in the BRB does not fully cover the interaction between transports being set up in reserves - it merely stipulates when a transport is set up, it may begin with units inside it. We question, why has the author gone out of his/her way to specifically remind us of the rule that already exists in the BRB? Once we begin to question the intent of the author, we begin to see a clear line of precedents and thought process of the author. There must be a reason for the consistency of the existence of these "reminder texts" on the unit entries with the transport rule that may/must begin the game in reserves, and only the unit entries with the transport rule that may/must begin the game in reserves. These reminder texts do not appear in the unit entries for transports that may not begin the game in reserves.
Perhaps, much in lines with our interpretations when the rule in the RBR and rule in the codex are in direct contradiction to another, these so called "reminder texts" are not reminders at all, but an addition to the existing rules in the BRB that has not covered in full the interaction of transports in reserves. So, without prejudice, we can infer that unless the transport has been given specific permissions via special rules, aka 'reminder texts', it may not carry units inside it while in reserve.
mchammadad wrote: BCB is correct in the ruling. Tactical Reserves in the matched play rules only states that units have the ability to use 'deep strike' rules. And that no less than half of the units in your army must be deployed on the battlefield
Rule here:
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere. Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round counts as having been destroyed.
The Tallarn Stratagem allows you to place 3 TALLARN units in ambush. Following it's restrictions of how far from the table edge and enemy they have to be.
Rule for transport here:
TRANSPORTS
Some models are noted as being a TRANSPORT on their datasheet – these vehicles ferry warriors to the front line, providing them with speed and protection. The following rules describe how units can embark and disembark from transports, and how they are used to move their passengers across the battlefield. Note that a unit cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn.
Transport Capacity: All transports have a transport capacity listed on their datasheet. This determines how many friendly models, and of what type, they can carry. A model’s transport capacity can never be exceeded.
When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up.
Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport.
Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.
If a transport is destroyed, any units embarked within it immediately disembark (see below) before the transport model is removed, but you must then roll one dice for each model you just set up on the battlefield. For each roll of 1, a model that disembarked (your choice) is slain.
Disembark:Any unit that begins its Movement phase embarked within a transport can disembark before the transport moves. When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield so that all of its models are within 3" of the transport and not within 1" of any enemy models – any disembarking model that cannot be set up in this way is slain.
Units that disembark can then act normally (move, shoot, charge, fight, etc.) during the remainder of their turn. Note though, that even if you don’t move disembarking units further in your Movement phase, they still count as having moved for any rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons (pg 180).
Note that the rules stating units embarked on a vehicle is actually before the EMBARK rules, it's only requirement being that you must declare that unit is embarked in the vehicle when it's set up.
Hence we return back to the Tactical Reserves ruling above it.
Make no mistake, these are the rules from the CORE RULEBOOK word for word. There is nothing wrong with BCB's following of the ruleset. He is following the rules as written.
Does it sound cheese? Maybe. Could other armies do this? of course they could. Is it illegal? Absolutely no way is it illegal
Also. for those that thought that this would fall under reinforcements? The unit has already been purchased for the army, in no way are these considered reinforcements
Your interpretation is that units in Transports are the same location as the Transport. They are neither in Reserves nor On the Battlefield.
Tactical Reserves stipulates that any unit that has not arrived On the Battlefield by the end of the Third Battleround are destroyed.
So by your reasoning allowing the Ogryn to deploy in a Ambushing Tallarn Transport, any unit that hasn't disembarked by the end of the Third Battleround is destroyed.
mchammadad wrote: BCB is correct in the ruling. Tactical Reserves in the matched play rules only states that units have the ability to use 'deep strike' rules. And that no less than half of the units in your army must be deployed on the battlefield
Rule here:
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere. Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round counts as having been destroyed.
The Tallarn Stratagem allows you to place 3 TALLARN units in ambush. Following it's restrictions of how far from the table edge and enemy they have to be.
Rule for transport here:
TRANSPORTS
Some models are noted as being a TRANSPORT on their datasheet – these vehicles ferry warriors to the front line, providing them with speed and protection. The following rules describe how units can embark and disembark from transports, and how they are used to move their passengers across the battlefield. Note that a unit cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn.
Transport Capacity: All transports have a transport capacity listed on their datasheet. This determines how many friendly models, and of what type, they can carry. A model’s transport capacity can never be exceeded.
When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up.
Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport.
Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst they are embarked. Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked.
If a transport is destroyed, any units embarked within it immediately disembark (see below) before the transport model is removed, but you must then roll one dice for each model you just set up on the battlefield. For each roll of 1, a model that disembarked (your choice) is slain.
Disembark:Any unit that begins its Movement phase embarked within a transport can disembark before the transport moves. When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield so that all of its models are within 3" of the transport and not within 1" of any enemy models – any disembarking model that cannot be set up in this way is slain.
Units that disembark can then act normally (move, shoot, charge, fight, etc.) during the remainder of their turn. Note though, that even if you don’t move disembarking units further in your Movement phase, they still count as having moved for any rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons (pg 180).
Note that the rules stating units embarked on a vehicle is actually before the EMBARK rules, it's only requirement being that you must declare that unit is embarked in the vehicle when it's set up.
Hence we return back to the Tactical Reserves ruling above it.
Make no mistake, these are the rules from the CORE RULEBOOK word for word. There is nothing wrong with BCB's following of the ruleset. He is following the rules as written.
Does it sound cheese? Maybe. Could other armies do this? of course they could. Is it illegal? Absolutely no way is it illegal
Also. for those that thought that this would fall under reinforcements? The unit has already been purchased for the army, in no way are these considered reinforcements
Your interpretation is that units in Transports are the same location as the Transport. They are neither in Reserves nor On the Battlefield. Tactical Reserves stipulates that any unit that has not arrived On the Battlefield by the end of the Third Battleround are destroyed. So by your reasoning allowing the Ogryn to deploy in a Ambushing Tallarn Transport, any unit that hasn't disembarked by the end of the Third Battleround is destroyed.
Do you seriously think this is correct?
RaW it's totally correct. This has been known since 8th edition launched. You're not magically finding anything new that hasn't been discussed multiple times before.
tneva82 wrote: Wonder how many pages this keeps going since this cannot be answered definitely without gw saying how itworks
Except it can. The RaW is clear and well defined. The problem is people making up rules, making up definitions and people arguing 'intent'.
This thread has been exhausted however, with all viewpoints, both rules as written and rules as 'intended' being laid out in full multiple times
9 pages prove it cannot. If i could it wouldn#p go on this long
I'm sorry, but I do disagree with this. A number of people arguing for one interpretation of the rule does not necessarily prove ambiguity. There are plenty of people that have mis-parsed grammar to support a false interpretation, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is guilty of it at some point.
To the thread, just stop, people. Continue to submit the question to the Rule Query email and hope GW gets back with an answer before March. Until then, discuss with your opponent or TO, get a ruling, and get the feth on with it.
Does a unit of 3 hellhounds count as one unit for setting up in ambush? For that matter, do 3 Leman Russ battle tanks count as one unit if I buy them as a single unit ?
kaiservonhugal wrote: Does a unit of 3 hellhounds count as one unit for setting up in ambush? For that matter, do 3 Leman Russ battle tanks count as one unit if I buy them as a single unit ?
Yes. Keep in mind you can only take 1 unit of VEHICLES now. You're capped to 3 Russes instead of 9.
kaiservonhugal wrote: Does a unit of 3 hellhounds count as one unit for setting up in ambush? For that matter, do 3 Leman Russ battle tanks count as one unit if I buy them as a single unit ?
Yep. And don't forget you can play the Stratagem more than once if you like.
kaiservonhugal wrote: Does a unit of 3 hellhounds count as one unit for setting up in ambush? For that matter, do 3 Leman Russ battle tanks count as one unit if I buy them as a single unit ?
Yep. And don't forget you can play the Stratagem more than once if you like.
I thought in matched play you could only use one stratagem per phase, and even though deployment is not a phase it seems unlikely you could purchase a stratagem twice.
davidgr33n wrote: I thought in matched play you could only use one stratagem per phase, and even though deployment is not a phase it seems unlikely you could purchase a stratagem twice.
Explicitly permitted.
Page 215 wrote:The same Stratagem cannot be used by the same player more than once during any single phase. This does not affect Stratagems that are not used during a phase, such as those used ‘before the battle begins’ or ‘at the end of a battle round’
NL_Cirrus wrote: I would just like to add, from my reading of the rule, either any unit can be in the transport in ambush, or non could.
Ambush - Tallarn Stratagem Use this Stratagem during deployment. Choose up to three Tallarn units to be set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield (only one of these units can have the Vehicle keyword).. At the end of any of your Movement phases these units can strike from hiding - set each of them up wholly within 7" of any battlefield edge and more than 9" from any enemy models. The units are considered to have moved their maximum distance.
If you'll notice, in addition to being in ambush when you arrive from ambush all of the units must be placed as described in the text above. The stratagem offers no exception to units in transports that are ambushing.
That means any units using the stratagem to ambush cannot be in transports because it is impossible to be in the transport and follow the stratagems rules for setting up when they strike from hiding.
Therefore either
the rules work as BCB says and any unit can be ambushed in inside of the transport,
OR
the rules work as Stephanius suggests and no unit can ever be in a transport that is ambushing, because only units using ambush would be able to embark on it while it is in ambush, but the ambush rule itself would prevent them per above.
You have a good point here about the rest of the Ambush rule; it's a shame that nobody felt like commenting on it last week. It does seem hard to reconcile putting Ogryns into a transport with the requirement to set them up wholly within 7" of any battlefield dege and more than 9" from any enemy models at the same time you are bringing the transport out of Reserves.
So, the way I originally read the stratagem, and the transport rules are as follows –
-Stratagem gets used and a transport is picked as the 1 vehicle and 2 other units get picked.
-This transport is then considered as “set up” in ambush as per the rules of the stratagem.
-Transport rules then kick in stating [q] When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up. [/q]
-1 unit is picked as being embarked in the transport
So, as per the stratagem, you’ve picked and “set up” 3 units via the stratagem, but, because of a rule that is triggered following the “set up” of a transport unit, you are then allowed to declare the embarked units in addition. (Original first look thoughts.)
HOWEVER, as others have pointed out, a new precedent has been set with the Eldar codex that was released after the Guard codex. And that is with the Cloudstrike stratagem.
Cloudstrike specifically states that if you use this stratagem on a transport, [q]all units embarked inside it remain so when it is set up in the clouds. [/q] This, essentially means that permission has been granted specially, to the embarked unit, to also be placed in reserve via the stratagem.
This could be taken to mean that, because the permission was stated on the stratagem, this was previously not allowed in all other similar situations regarding transports and reserves. (drop pods were the only exception due to their special rule)
So, this then becomes a question of “intent” vs “interpretation of RAW”. (yes, RAW can be interpreted in different ways… This entire forum section is proof of that at times.)
Currently, the perceived “intent” of how things works is being driven off the wording of a single stratagem released after the Imperial Guard codex – so, the question has to be asked – What was the interpretation of the rule PRIOR to the Eldar codex being released?
If the original interpretation allowed the interaction due to the sequencing of transport “set up”, then, this is a case of GW messing things up with wording. The use of a deployment stratagem categorically over-rides the Matched Play rules on putting units in reserve – otherwise, RAW you would only be able to select units that already have a “reserve ability” when using the stratagems. And this, of course, makes the stratagems completely pointless.
Transports also work in the same way. Embarked units can only be “embarked” if they meet the requirements of the transport. Once embarked they have no “impact/effect” on the battlefield unless the transport has a special rule allowing them to i.e. Open Topped firing deck. So, for all intent and purpose, they are in “reserve”.
Because we now know that stratagems OVERRIDE the Matched Play reserve rules, we can then draw the conclusion that, units without the innate ability to be deployed in reserve, can sometimes be deployed in reserve.
This, as a result, resolves the issue people are having in regards to “this unit doesn’t have this rule so can’t do this”.
The next question is – “do embarked units take on the characteristics of the transport? i.e do they change from infantry to vehicle?”. From everything we can see rules wise, even though the embarked unit -usually- has no impact on the battlefield, they still retain their own characteristics and keywords.
The problem we therefore face, is one of sequencing and unit count. Is a unit declared as “embarked” before or after set up? Currently, the transport rule implies that the unit is embarked prior to the set-up of the transport, but only declared as being so at the point of the transport being “set up”.
As per the deployment rules, we also know that when you deploy a transport and embarked units, you are making a single “drop selection” that affects 1+x units – something you must be aware off, due to its impact on how many units you are then allowed to put in reserve. This, therefore implies, that because when deployed normally a transport and embarked units counts as multiple units, the same will apply for instances when they are placed into reserve. This, then, concludes that for the purpose of determining how many “units” a transport is, you need to include the sum of the units within it as well.
This then, will have an impact on the number of units selected for the stratagem. As the stratagem states up to 3 units, we know we cannot exceed 3 units. Therefore, as my ramblings above conclude, units within a transport would count towards the allowed 3 units. Now, because these now count towards the allocated amount of units, we then have to look at the next part of the stratagem, which states “Tallarn” units. We have also drawn the conclusion, that while embarked, a unit retains its own rules, characteristics and keywords. This then means, any units embarked within the transport also have to have the “Tallarn” keyword in order to be eligible to be used as part of the stratagem.
Therefore, I can only conclude, that in this instance, Ogryns would not be able to be deployed within the transport that is ambushing, due to them not being “Tallarn”, and, any eligible units embarked would count towards the maximum 3.
All units in ambush have to be set up within 7" of any battlefield edge. That requirement cannot possibly be fulfilled by disembarking, since disembarking would have to happen before the transport moves, and an arriving transport already counts as having moved. Therefore, a Tallarn infantry unit in ambush can't be set up inside a transport (just as NL_Cirrus stated earlier).
Following your logic, a transport in ambush simply cannot have any units inside. This could of course be intended, but i'll stick to BCB's interpretation for the time being.
Stapling bits of rules together will always produce weird outcomes. Stick to "three Tallarn units" as the rules for this Stratagem require and there's no stapling required.
I know I'm late, but I just can't see how this wouldn't be allowed. You choose which units are embarked on a transport when you set it up. It doesn't say anything about where you set up the transport, and neither do any of the transport datasheets I've seen, so why would it matter where it's set up?
You're not ambushing with ogryns, just like you're not moving ogryns when you move a transport with them in it. You're ambushing with a transport. Embarked units aren't treated as being on the board when their transport is, so why would they be treated as being in ambush just because their transport is?
The Cloudstrike wording makes things more confusing as to the RAI. Did they intend for the stratagems to work differently for transports, or were they just being more specific when they wrote Cloudstrike? Who knows, except the rules writers?
In any case, they should FAQ this. Whatever their intention was, there are clearly lots of people who don't read it their way.
tneva82 wrote: But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...
The issue is that "it isnt explicitly stated as true, therefore it mus be false," which is a logical fallacy.
"Ambush doesn't state that you cannot do as such, therefore it must be allowed to do so." is the core of the argument.
Actually, the core of the argument is "Ambush doesn't say anything one way or another, therefore, it is inapplicable to the question."
Saying "can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" can be shortened to "can ogryns be deployed in a transport?" because Ambush doesn't speak on the point, so can be disregarded as irrelevant when investigating either a positive or negative answer.
The answer to this Occam's Razor version of the question is obviously yes.
It's like asking "can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in the right side of my Deployment Zone?". Well, the Deployment Zone rules don't specifically address this one way or another, so you can safely simply ask "can Ogryns be deployed in a transport?" and the answer is, as mentioned, covered in the transport rules: yes.
tneva82 wrote: But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...
The issue is that "it isnt explicitly stated as true, therefore it mus be false," which is a logical fallacy.
"Ambush doesn't state that you cannot do as such, therefore it must be allowed to do so." is the core of the argument.
Not really. The Ogryns have explicit permission to embark and no restriction is the core of the argument. I even presented the argument as a formal syllogism earlier in the thread, making it clear there are no fallacies. Feel free to point out the fallacious step if there is one, but don't straw man the argument please.
tneva82 wrote: But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...
The issue is that "it isnt explicitly stated as true, therefore it mus be false," which is a logical fallacy.
"Ambush doesn't state that you cannot do as such, therefore it must be allowed to do so." is the core of the argument.
Not really. The Ogryns have explicit permission to embark and no restriction is the core of the argument. I even presented the argument as a formal syllogism earlier in the thread, making it clear there are no fallacies. Feel free to point out the fallacious step if there is one, but don't straw man the argument please.
If you truly rely on technicalities of verbatims to make a point, then Orgyns, or any units for that matter, do not have "explicit permission to embark" - rather, transports have the explicit permission to have units embarked within it. Nowhere in the rules for the units tell you "this unit can embark on such and such transport vehicle."
To say, "ogryns have explicit permission to embark, and there are no specific restrictions that prevents it from doing so" is the SAME statement as "it is allowed to do so, because there is nothing telling you you cannot do so." There is no "straw manning" of any arguments here, my good sir.
It's a fallacy of 'ad ignorantum' where you claim something to be true because it cannot be proven false.
Syllogistic reasoning can be invalid, unsound, or weak depending on the strength of the premises assumed to be true. Simply forming a deductive reasoning doesn't make the statement true.
BaconCatBug wrote: Ogryns have explicit permission to embark BECAUSE THE RULEBOOK EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY, AND ANY OTHER UNIT, CAN.
It's really that simple.
I don't disagree. I'm only commenting at drager's the nitpicking of sequence of words.
In purely technical sense, the datasheet for a transport tells you 'This transport has capacity of X. It may carry so and so units. so and so units take up Y number of slots.'
What we DON'T have is on the datasheet for units that can embark on a transport 'This unit can embark on transport A, B, but not C.'
So, EXPLICTLY, transports have the ability embark units inside of it. It is logically IMPLIED that units can embark in transport.
BaconCatBug wrote: Ogryns have explicit permission to embark BECAUSE THE RULEBOOK EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY, AND ANY OTHER UNIT, CAN.
It's really that simple.
I don't disagree. I'm only commenting at drager's the nitpicking of sequence of words.
In purely technical sense, the datasheet for a transport tells you 'This transport has capacity of X. It may carry so and so units. so and so units take up Y number of slots.'
What we DON'T have is on the datasheet for units that can embark on a transport 'This unit can embark on transport A, B, but not C.'
So, EXPLICTLY, transports have the ability embark units inside of it. It is logically IMPLIED that units can embark in transport.
What is the argument here exactly and why does it change whether or not Ogryns can be inside of an Ambushing Transport?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Actually, the core of the argument is "Ambush doesn't say anything one way or another, therefore, it is inapplicable to the question."
I think the real core of the argument is rather "can transports carry passengers in reserves?" The conclusion arrived at is that "the transport rule doesn't say it cannot ferry units inside it when it is in reserves locale, therefore, it is able to ferry units inside it when it is in reserves locale." The "can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" question is a very specific instance of this larger issue at hand.
Once again, I am in full agreement as to what the RAW says. I am only insisting that the issue goes back to the poor writing on the transport rule that's been causing a lot of similar issues.
The premises <"can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" can be shortened to "can ogryns be deployed in a transport?"> is true because the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]. It is not that it is irrelevant, but rather undeterminable.
For the premises <can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in the right side of my Deployment Zone?> - the deployment zone rules are specific to the type of deployment selected/rolled for that game. Each deployment zone rules specifically outline the rules you must follow - it is a deployment ZONE, and not deployment SPOT. The right question to ask is then, "well, are you following all the applicable rules within your deployment zone?" If yes, you can deploy your transport with ogryns on the right side of your deployment zone.
BaconCatBug wrote: Ogryns have explicit permission to embark BECAUSE THE RULEBOOK EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY, AND ANY OTHER UNIT, CAN.
It's really that simple.
I don't disagree. I'm only commenting at drager's the nitpicking of sequence of words.
In purely technical sense, the datasheet for a transport tells you 'This transport has capacity of X. It may carry so and so units. so and so units take up Y number of slots.'
What we DON'T have is on the datasheet for units that can embark on a transport 'This unit can embark on transport A, B, but not C.'
So, EXPLICTLY, transports have the ability embark units inside of it. It is logically IMPLIED that units can embark in transport.
What is the argument here exactly and why does it change whether or not Ogryns can be inside of an Ambushing Transport?
There is no argument. It's a simple reply to the overreaction on a statement made to introduce the other side of the argument that was interpreted as a disagreement.
skchsan wrote: The premises <"can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" can be shortened to "can ogryns be deployed in a transport?"> is true because the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]. It is not that it is irrelevant, but rather undeterminable.
I know I'm just replying to a single part of your post, but that's mostly because I simply agreed with the rest of what you said!
However, I do disagree that it's indeterminate (or undeterminable or whatever).
Let's take your premise word for word:
"the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]" - we'll call it P.
Then we'll look at my premise:
"whether a transport is on the battlefield or not, it may have units deployed inside of it" - that's Q.
If we put them together, we get:
If <"the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]">, then <"whether a transport is on the battlefield or not, it may have units deployed inside of it">. P->Q
You yourself have asserted P, therefore you must also accept Q, unless you disagree with the truth of Premise Q, in which case, I would challenge you to explain why you don't believe it to be the case.
skchsan wrote: The premises <"can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" can be shortened to "can ogryns be deployed in a transport?"> is true because the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]. It is not that it is irrelevant, but rather undeterminable.
I know I'm just replying to a single part of your post, but that's mostly because I simply agreed with the rest of what you said!
However, I do disagree that it's indeterminate (or undeterminable or whatever).
Let's take your premise word for word:
"the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]" - we'll call it P.
Then we'll look at my premise:
"whether a transport is on the battlefield or not, it may have units deployed inside of it" - that's Q.
If we put them together, we get:
If <"the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]">, then <"whether a transport is on the battlefield or not, it may have units deployed inside of it">. P->Q
You yourself have asserted P, therefore you must also accept Q, unless you disagree with the truth of Premise Q, in which case, I would challenge you to explain why you don't believe it to be the case.
Nope. The logic is flawless without any false premises, hence, why I agree with yours/bcb's interpretation of the RAW. All I'm insisting that the FAQ needs to address the "the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]" portion, because it's precisely the lack of this definition that's causing numerous issues with transport interactions.
It's because it seems to point at that only transports that must/may begin has these so called "reminder texts" explicitly "reminding" you that it's a transport and thus follows transport rules. I think there is a reasonable doubt to believe that transports weren't meant to be able to carry passengers in reserves unless specifically given permission to do so - but as the rules as written currently stands, any and all transports can carry passengers anywhere in any locale.
tneva82 wrote: But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...
The issue is that "it isnt explicitly stated as true, therefore it mus be false," which is a logical fallacy.
"Ambush doesn't state that you cannot do as such, therefore it must be allowed to do so." is the core of the argument.
Not really. The Ogryns have explicit permission to embark and no restriction is the core of the argument. I even presented the argument as a formal syllogism earlier in the thread, making it clear there are no fallacies. Feel free to point out the fallacious step if there is one, but don't straw man the argument please.
If you truly rely on technicalities of verbatims to make a point, then Orgyns, or any units for that matter, do not have "explicit permission to embark" - rather, transports have the explicit permission to have units embarked within it. Nowhere in the rules for the units tell you "this unit can embark on such and such transport vehicle."
The transport rules in the Battle Primer combined with the specific rules on the transport in question give explicit permission. You would not have to have a rule on the datasheet of the Ogryns for a rule to be explicit, you simply need the rules written clearly and with sufficient detail to leave no room for confusion or doubt. This is the case for the permission to embark. An example of an implicit permission would be making the assumption that a rule reading something like "Splinter weapons may reroll 1s to hit" affects both Splinter Cannons and Splinter Rifles, this is due to the fact that these weapons don't have a type or rule called Splinter, but merely have it in the name. Something may be both explicit and indirect as the permission for Ogryns is in this case.
skchsan wrote: To say, "ogryns have explicit permission to embark, and there are no specific restrictions that prevents it from doing so" is the SAME statement as "it is allowed to do so, because there is nothing telling you you cannot do so." There is no "straw manning" of any arguments here, my good sir. It's a fallacy of 'ad ignorantum' where you claim something to be true because it cannot be proven false.
It is not the same statement, perhaps my phrasing confused you and, if so, I apologise. Ogryns are given explicit permission to embark. That is the crux, the second clause was clarification to show that if there were specific restrictions then they would be prevented. This is the same logic for them being able to embark on the battlefield or units being able to be selected to shoot in the shooting phase. There is an explicit permission and no specific restriction, except where such restrictions do exist (e.g. advancing in the case of being selected to shoot). An argumentum ad ignorantiam is an argument whereby one assumes the position that because another does not know the information that the proposition of their antagonist must be true. That is not a part of this argument, as you can see from both the way others have stated it and my earlier syllogism, there is no strut of this based upon claiming another's position is unknown or false, the arguments stands on it's own.
Premise 1) The Tallarn stratagem tells you to set up a unit in ambush.
Premise 2) The rules for embarking passengers trigger on a transport being set up.
Conclusion) Passengers can embark on a transport that has used the stratagem.
That is not an argument from ignorance.
skchsan wrote: Syllogistic reasoning can be invalid, unsound, or weak depending on the strength of the premises assumed to be true. Simply forming a deductive reasoning doesn't make the statement true.
This I 100% agree with, which is why I invited you to point out the flaw or fallacy in the syllogism, rather than arguing (I now assume unintentionally) against a straw man position, which was not that advanced. I can see where you might have been confused by my wording and that of others in this thread, but you were in fact addressing a diffferent argument to the one put forward. I agree the argument you were addressing is fallacious, but it is not my argument, or anyone elses as far as I can see, as such it is a straw man, albeit an unintentional one.
I’ve read the thread and despite all the reasoning being put forward I keep coming back to common sense. Yes some of this is possible until GWFAQs it, but do you really want to do this to someone? I mean imagine being in a friendly game with a newb and suddenly 2 BaneHammers pop out their flanks and 16 Bullgryn (plus the other models outflanking) smash into them, it’s kinda NOT FUN and can turn people away from the game.
For tournaments I can see this kind of thing being banned.
davidgr33n wrote: I’ve read the thread and despite all the reasoning being put forward I keep coming back to common sense. Yes some of this is possible until GWFAQs it, but do you really want to do this to someone? I mean imagine being in a friendly game with a newb and suddenly 2 BaneHammers pop out their flanks and 16 Bullgryn (plus the other models outflanking) smash into them, it’s kinda NOT FUN and can turn people away from the game.
For tournaments I can see this kind of thing being banned.
What is "unfair" is irrelevant. All that matters is what the rules say you can do.
davidgr33n wrote: I’ve read the thread and despite all the reasoning being put forward I keep coming back to common sense. Yes some of this is possible until GWFAQs it, but do you really want to do this to someone? I mean imagine being in a friendly game with a newb and suddenly 2 BaneHammers pop out their flanks and 16 Bullgryn (plus the other models outflanking) smash into them, it’s kinda NOT FUN and can turn people away from the game.
For tournaments I can see this kind of thing being banned.
What is "unfair" is irrelevant. All that matters is what the rules say you can do.
I said nothing about it being “unfair”, my exact wording was “NOT FUN”, especially when considering who you’re playing. I’m sure the 8 year old kid who is playing in his first game at your local game store would be thrilled to get his face stomped by such a tactic.
I love that people judge "what is fun" by what an 8 year old would enjoy.
As for the rest of us, we recognize that the Ogryns cannot get out of the transport until the turn after it arrives, meaning that you have an entire turn to get out of their way, and the transport can't move before they disembark, so it's not like you know where they are. Furthermore, that also gives you time to destroy the transport, which, while not easy when speaking of the Imperial superheavy transports, is not exactly hard, either. Especially if you have planned for it.
Secondly, even if the Ogryns make it into combat, they are not very frightening. Elite infantry, like Space Marines, are likely only to lose a few of their number, while hordes like Imperial Guard infantry are unlikely to notice the losses.
Lastly, the rest of us also recognize the expenditure of resources required to achieve this, including 404 points minimum for a superheavy transport with only two guns, and another 150-200 points for the ogryns, plus the 3 Command Points for the stratagem. It isn't like it is free.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more inclined I am to simply advance the superheavy transport forwards from my deployment zone. You'll get 11-16" closer to the enemy, can disembark turn 2 (just like the stratagem) and crash into whatever you want, and you save 3CP. If you even want to spend 550-600 points on the trick.
Dem some well flashy gitz!
