Do units in Transports count as on the table for the purposes of the Tactical Reserves rule?
There is not a clear definitive statement to that purpose, and there are arguments on both sides of the answer. They revolve around 'the game kinda breaks down if they don't count" and "everything everywhere intimates or directly states they are not on the table and can't interact without special rules."
HIWPI - For deployment purposes (e.g. Tactical Reserves) units share the location of their transport. (i.e. "on the battlefield", "In Orbit", "In the webway"). It's how my local group has agreed to play and no one is stuffing 12 character models into a Chimera to get 13 units into deepstrike, so it's been fine. We also agree that once the game starts, units in transports are "NOT THERE" based on the existing 'stepping into a new edition' clarifications and the general "remove them from the battlefield" context.
Ask your opponent before the game, and email that question to the GWFAQ address as well. However I hope they are sick of seeing it and have an answer forthcoming in the Spring FAQ.
RaW a unit in a transport is not "on the battlefield" thus doesn't count towards the 50% that must be on the battlefield per the Tactical Reserves rule.
RaI is the same because RaW=RaI, otherwise an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ would have been made.
RaW a unit in a transport is not "on the battlefield" thus doesn't count towards the 50% that must be on the battlefield per the Tactical Reserves rule.
RaI is the same because RaW=RaI, otherwise an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ would have been made.
Just to be clear - I actually agree that without a FAQ/Errata change, that the RAW are as you describe them.
Which is also why I pointed out HIWPI - because the 8 or so folks I regularly play with all agreed they preferred that method.
And finally, why I say 'ask your opponent' because that's how we all sorted out how we like to play. None of us are gunning for Tournament play, I had my fill of that around 3rd edition.
A) Units in transports don't count at all (numerator or denominator), and so this ends up working by the number of "drops" you have. You can't use up more deployment turns putting stuff into deep strike than you do putting stuff on the table.
B) Units in transports count as being wherever the transport is.
I don't think I've ever played with anyone who wanted to treat them as not on the table and counting against the number you could deep strike, though that does seem to be what the rules say. That said, I don't think people have much experience with deep-striking transports, since these are relatively rare. It's easy to imagine someone feeling like the Raider and the Warriors inside it both count as deep-striking even if they would ordinarily go for option (A).
Actually, most people play by the rules. You're free to make up whatever you want in your own group however. I've yet to have a game where people didn't want to play by the rules.
BaconCatBug wrote: Actually, most people play by the rules. You're free to make up whatever you want in your own group however. I've yet to have a game where people didn't want to play by the rules.
I think plenty of people don't play by the RAW and your sig file is an example of where they tend to break those rules.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaI is the same because RaW=RaI, otherwise an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ would have been made.
Stop saying this. It’s so incorrect it’s laughable. RAW can *clearly* have unintended effects (or most of your posts wouldn’t exist) and FAQs/errata take time to write. I know it’s part of your “reasons I’m never wrong” that you wrote out in another post (literally) but please, stahhhhppppp. It’s embarrassing.
To hold the position that RAW=RAI you have to also believe that the situations where the game breaks and becomes literally unplayable are RAI, which is surely untenable.
Stux wrote: To hold the position that RAW=RAI you have to also believe that the situations where the game breaks and becomes literally unplayable are RAI, which is surely untenable.
And apply it when it doesn’t support your opinion, which also seems not to happen in an adjacent thread... ;-)
A unit embarked in a transport has the same locale as that transport. So, if the transport is on the battlefield, the unit embarked would have the same locale, and therefore not be in reserves.
Marmatag wrote: A unit embarked in a transport has the same locale as that transport. So, if the transport is on the battlefield, the unit embarked would have the same locale, and therefore not be in reserves.
[Citation Needed]
The transport rules EXPLICITLY say to remove the unit from the battlefield.
Marmatag wrote: A unit embarked in a transport has the same locale as that transport. So, if the transport is on the battlefield, the unit embarked would have the same locale, and therefore not be in reserves.
[Citation Needed]
The transport rules EXPLICITLY say to remove the unit from the battlefield.
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.
The units deploy with the transport, and the transports locale is the battlefield. For them to be placed in reserves would be a separate deployment choice.
Marmatag wrote: A unit embarked in a transport has the same locale as that transport. So, if the transport is on the battlefield, the unit embarked would have the same locale, and therefore not be in reserves.
[Citation Needed]
The transport rules EXPLICITLY say to remove the unit from the battlefield.
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.
The units deploy with the transport, and the transports locale is the battlefield. For them to be placed in reserves would be a separate deployment choice.
The transport rules also state:
"If all models in a unit end their move withn 3"or a friendlly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side - it is now cembarked inside the transport."
So, you are clearly not on the battlefield when you are embarked. It's all still one drop, but only the transport itself is on the battlefield.
Marmatag wrote: A unit embarked in a transport has the same locale as that transport. So, if the transport is on the battlefield, the unit embarked would have the same locale, and therefore not be in reserves.
[Citation Needed]
The transport rules EXPLICITLY say to remove the unit from the battlefield.
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.
The units deploy with the transport, and the transports locale is the battlefield. For them to be placed in reserves would be a separate deployment choice.
The transport rules also state:
"If all models in a unit end their move withn 3"or a friendlly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side - it is now cembarked inside the transport."
So, you are clearly not on the battlefield when you are embarked. It's all still one drop, but only the transport itself is on the battlefield.
This is just telling you that models cannot be physically on the table and also embarked in the transport. It does not change the locale of the unit. You will notice that it does not tell you to redeploy your models into reserves, or anything along those lines.
Marmatag wrote: A unit embarked in a transport has the same locale as that transport. So, if the transport is on the battlefield, the unit embarked would have the same locale, and therefore not be in reserves.
[Citation Needed]
The transport rules EXPLICITLY say to remove the unit from the battlefield.
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.
The units deploy with the transport, and the transports locale is the battlefield. For them to be placed in reserves would be a separate deployment choice.
The transport rules also state:
"If all models in a unit end their move withn 3"or a friendlly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side - it is now cembarked inside the transport."
So, you are clearly not on the battlefield when you are embarked. It's all still one drop, but only the transport itself is on the battlefield.
This is just telling you that models cannot be physically on the table and also embarked in the transport. It does not change the locale of the unit. You will notice that it does not tell you to redeploy your models into reserves, or anything along those lines.
The reserves rule tells you the minimum percentage of your units have to be on the battlefield. This rule tells you that embarked units are not on the battlefield. Therefore, you do not count them as being on the battlefield when you determine the number of units, and count against the maximum number you can have that are not on the battlefield. You don't get to ignore a rule specifically stating they are not on the battlefield to claim that they are. You can houserule it all you want (and it would be a reasonable house rule), but by RAW embarked units are not on the table and therefore don't count toward the number of units that are on the table.
I've never seen anyone play it that way.
I have seen people count drops or units but never counting units in on table transport as in reserve. That way madness lies
Ice_can wrote: I've never seen anyone play it that way.
I have seen people count drops or units but never counting units in on table transport as in reserve. That way madness lies
Agreed. I’ve always seen it as “not in reserve” as being the key thing but there’ll be multiple people along to tell me why I’m wrong any minute now...
Ice_can wrote: I've never seen anyone play it that way.
I have seen people count drops or units but never counting units in on table transport as in reserve. That way madness lies
Agreed. I’ve always seen it as “not in reserve” as being the key thing but there’ll be multiple people along to tell me why I’m wrong any minute now...
You're wrong./s
Actually that's how I play it as well but the reserve rules state that for matched play you must have half your army on the battlefield and units embarked do not count as being on the battlefield so it would seem RAW units in transports count against your reserves.
I really don't like it and I've never met anyone who has played that way.
It leads to odd situations where if your putting 4 or 5 HQ in a transport it counts as one deployment but 4 reserve's.
It would also mean you'd have to start units outside of transports to get alpha'd of the table because technically you don't have 50% of your units on the table. Instead of hiding inside the big armoured vehicles.
Ice_can wrote: It leads to odd situations where if your putting 4 or 5 HQ in a transport it counts as one deployment but 4 reserve's.
It would also mean you'd have to start units outside of transports to get alpha'd of the table because technically you don't have 50% of your units on the table. Instead of hiding inside tge big armoured vehicles.
It's almost like the rule is supposed to stop character deathstars from hiding in transports at the start of the game!
Ice_can wrote: It leads to odd situations where if your putting 4 or 5 HQ in a transport it counts as one deployment but 4 reserve's.
It would also mean you'd have to start units outside of transports to get alpha'd of the table because technically you don't have 50% of your units on the table. Instead of hiding inside tge big armoured vehicles.
It's almost like the rule is supposed to stop character deathstars from hiding in transports at the start of the game!
Except it doesn't, it just means people will game the system with cheap disposable soup units to turn there deployment phase upto 11 and deploy 50 of the cheapest thing they can find so they can deepstrike important units.
40k needs less of that and more common sence sounds like they need to go back and FAQ errata Chapter approve it to 50% of your points.
The rule is simply badly worded. They’re trying to say “half not deployed in reserve” but muddied it with using “on the battlefield”, leading to the ludicrous claims by some that units in Transports die on turn 4, etc.
Ice_can wrote: It leads to odd situations where if your putting 4 or 5 HQ in a transport it counts as one deployment but 4 reserve's.
It would also mean you'd have to start units outside of transports to get alpha'd of the table because technically you don't have 50% of your units on the table. Instead of hiding inside tge big armoured vehicles.
It's almost like the rule is supposed to stop character deathstars from hiding in transports at the start of the game!
Since when did you ever believe it was possible to know the designers’ intent??? I mean, what you posted isn’t it, but still...
JohnnyHell wrote: The rule is simply badly worded. They’re trying to say “half not deployed in reserve” but muddied it with using “on the battlefield”, leading to the ludicrous claims by some that units in Transports die on turn 4, etc. .
Basically, this. If they had specified in reserves and made a statement that embarked units are not in reserves even though they are not on the battlefield, things would have been much easier. Then, they might have said "not in reserve" instead of "on the battlefield".
JohnnyHell wrote: The rule is simply badly worded. They’re trying to say “half not deployed in reserve” but muddied it with using “on the battlefield”, leading to the ludicrous claims by some that units in Transports die on turn 4, etc. .
Basically, this. If they had specified in reserves and made a statement that embarked units are not in reserves even though they are not on the battlefield, things would have been much easier. Then, they might have said "not in reserve" instead of "on the battlefield".
BaconCatBug wrote: Actually, most people play by the rules. You're free to make up whatever you want in your own group however. I've yet to have a game where people didn't want to play by the rules.
However since RAI is unclear since GW writers can't write well and you can't play 40k at all with RAW people play by rules but do required changes. NOBODY plays the game 100% RAW. It's flat out impossible. Anybody trying to claim they play 100% RAW is simply lying. They either are not playing 100% RAW or aren't playing at all.
And once again, ignoring the hyperbolic people here trying to make an issue out of things which are not...
Yes, a unit in a transport is counted as deployed. Haven't seen a single person play any way other than this since 8th launched, and that's...a lot of games and people. Never once has anyone (in the real world - not the internet) argued otherwise.
You also won't find a single tournament, battle report, etc. where anyone plays that the units don't count as deployed for purposes of calculating reserves. Not a single one.
Elbows wrote: And once again, ignoring the hyperbolic people here trying to make an issue out of things which are not...
Yes, a unit in a transport is counted as deployed. Haven't seen a single person play any way other than this since 8th launched, and that's...a lot of games and people. Never once has anyone (in the real world - not the internet) argued otherwise.
You also won't find a single tournament, battle report, etc. where anyone plays that the units don't count as deployed for purposes of calculating reserves. Not a single one.
Indeed. It’s largely a “one guy” problem (looks up a couple of posts) rather than even an internet problem.
So you don't use assault weapons after advancing or use pistols in melee? Because if you do you're no longer playing RAW. Just look at your own sig and that should show you why RAW doesn't work sometimes.
So you don't use assault weapons after advancing or use pistols in melee? Because if you do you're no longer playing RAW. Just look at your own sig and that should show you why RAW doesn't work sometimes.
So you don't use assault weapons after advancing or use pistols in melee? Because if you do you're no longer playing RAW. Just look at your own sig and that should show you why RAW doesn't work sometimes.
I do not.
Then I applaud your devotion to RAW, but I would definitely not enjoy that game.
So you don't use assault weapons after advancing or use pistols in melee? Because if you do you're no longer playing RAW. Just look at your own sig and that should show you why RAW doesn't work sometimes.
I do not.
Then I applaud your devotion to RAW, but I would definitely not enjoy that game.
Me neither. Following every "being right on the internet" approach instead of making the game work would be an exercise in ego and tedium. Not a game I'd play.
Personally thats a no from me on two counts.
Each unit you choose to deepstrike is still a drop, as you deploy it in teleportatium, manta hold, webway not sure what the scion version is.
Also as I said I've always played drop for drop so thats one drop on table 13 in reserve so massively breaking the 50% rule.
skchsan wrote: Given the consensus, I present a following case:
AM player embarks 12 single model units within a Valkyrie. He then chooses to place 13 units of Scions/plasma Command Squad into reserves.
He finishes his deployment with a single drop with rest of his army in reserves.
Legal?
No, because the 12 units in the Valkyrie are not on the battlefield. You have a total of 26 units, of which 1 is on the battlefield. I'm no maths wiz but I am pretty certain 1 out of 26 is less than 50%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: Also as I said I've always played drop for drop so thats one drop on table 13 in reserve so massively breaking the 50% rule.
That's not how deployment works, like, at all. Tactical Reserves doesn't care about "drops", whatever that means, it cares about units on the battlefield.
blaktoof wrote: The units in the Valkyrie are not on the table but are arrived and deployed.
Otherwise you wouldn't have to deploy them with the transport during deployment, which also means they arrived to the battlefield.
Additionally any units that are embarked after third turn would be destroyed, and likewise embarking on to a vehicle turn 4 would destroy your unit.
Which makes no sense at all.
Units embarked are deployed onto the battlefield/table, even if the physical model is removed from the table.
1) Read the rules for Embarking. It literally tells you to remove them from the battlefield.
2) Yes, units that are embarked after the 3rd turn that began embarked are destroyed. This is what the rules say. Playing it any other way is not following the rules.
If you playing a mission with alternating deployments you each take turns deploying a unit, the rinkle with that being you would need to deploy each unit in a transport as its unit for unit, but units deployed in transports are declaired when the transport is deployed so most people use drops to cover number of deployments required. Ie if you have 15 and I have 9 I'll finsh deployment before you but I might have 20 units to your 18 units.
Also you have to place each scion squad into airborn insertion as a seperate deployment drop.
Aerial Drop During deployment, you can set up this model in a high altitude transport, ready to deploy via grav-chute, instead of placing it on the battlefield. At the end of any of your movement phases the model can make an aerial drop - set it up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models. So thats a 14 drop list.
blaktoof wrote: The units in the Valkyrie are not on the table but are arrived and deployed.
Otherwise you wouldn't have to deploy them with the transport during deployment, which also means they arrived to the battlefield.
Additionally any units that are embarked after third turn would be destroyed, and likewise embarking on to a vehicle turn 4 would destroy your unit.
Which makes no sense at all.
Units embarked are deployed onto the battlefield/table, even if the physical model is removed from the table.
1) Read the rules for Embarking. It literally tells you to remove them from the battlefield.
2) Yes, units that are embarked after the 3rd turn that began embarked are destroyed. This is what the rules say. Playing it any other way is not following the rules.
I fear you may be confusing things. There are no default rules for what state removed from play models are in.
Under transports, it tells you that you can set up a transport with units inside it during deployment instead of being setup separately. This means the embarked units are indeed setup.
Under embark it tells you to remove the models from the battlefield. This in no way states to put them into reserves, or for matched play tactical reserves.
There are no rules stating models removed from the battlefield are in reserves or tactical reserves.
If units are placed in a transport during deployment the units are set up per the rule for transports, as they are setup on the battlefield per the rule for reserves/ tactical reserves they RAW count towards deployment limit.
Further as they were setup they have already arrived to the battlefield and, further as embarking in a transport does not place the model in reserves within the core rules(some Strategems allow you to put a transport with embarked models in reserves..).. the rule for tactical reserves killing units if they are not arrived by turn 3 has no effect.
In short, embarking does not put models into reserves. The models may be off the table, but they are deployed and have been setup on the battlefield- embarked in a transport.
embarked does remove them from the battlefield, and it does not put them into reserve. Those units will not count against your reserve 50%, but niether will they die on turn three.
embarked does remove them from the battlefield, and it does not put them into reserve. Those units will not count against your reserve 50%, but niether will they die on turn three.
If you ignore through section where transports tells you embarked units set up with the transport during deployment instead of being setup separately it leads to a problem with your stance.
We could ignore that section of the transport rules, and it would lead to the problem that you have units that are neither deployed or in reserves.
embarked does remove them from the battlefield, and it does not put them into reserve. Those units will not count against your reserve 50%, but niether will they die on turn three.
If you ignore through section where transports tells you embarked units set up with the transport during deployment instead of being setup separately it leads to a problem with your stance.
We could ignore that section of the transport rules, and it would lead to the problem that you have units that are neither deployed or in reserves.
blaktoof wrote: The units in the Valkyrie are not on the table but are arrived and deployed.
Otherwise you wouldn't have to deploy them with the transport during deployment, which also means they arrived to the battlefield.
Additionally any units that are embarked after third turn would be destroyed, and likewise embarking on to a vehicle turn 4 would destroy your unit.
Which makes no sense at all.
Units embarked are deployed onto the battlefield/table, even if the physical model is removed from the table.
1) Read the rules for Embarking. It literally tells you to remove them from the battlefield.
2) Yes, units that are embarked after the 3rd turn that began embarked are destroyed. This is what the rules say. Playing it any other way is not following the rules.
Whatever your stance on 1), you’re so clearly incorrect on 2) it hurts yet you keep parroting it, with your standard “anything else isn’t playing by the rules” fallacy. Yawn. Units in a transport aren’t reserves so don’t die. Stop repeating that nonsense, because it’s nonsense.
If you agree that 12 single model units in a valkyrie doesnt allow 13 deepstrikers, then units in transports do not count towards having models set up on the battlefield.
Tactical reserves rule does not care about the number of deployed units. It o ly cares about how many units are ON THE BATTLEFIELD. Transport rule specifically tells you embarked units are REMOVED FROM BATTLEFIELD.
How has this discussion continued after Marmatags quote of the designer's commentary?
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.
Units in transport are deployed. You must state their locale. So even though they are not on the table, their locale is different from deep-strikers.
There is literally no reason to describe this locale distinction if it was irrelevant. And the distinction only matters when comparing deep-strikers to other units off the board (i.e. transported). Yet some here are constantly referring to "off the board" like there is no distinction...
hollow one wrote: How has this discussion continued after Marmatags quote of the designer's commentary?
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.
Units in transport are deployed. You must state their locale. So even though they are not on the table, their locale is different from deep-strikers.
There is literally no reason to describe this locale distinction if it was irrelevant. And the distinction only matters when comparing deep-strikers to other units off the board (i.e. transported). Yet some here are constantly referring to "off the board" like there is no distinction...
Can you cite us where in the tactical reserves rule dictates the 50% rule is dependent upon the number of units DEPLOYED?
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.
[Snip]
Let's note that the rules from transports do not actually say that they do not count as being on the battlefield; rather only specifies that their abilities do not work while they are embarked unless otherwise stated. This leaves room for some abilities to in fact measure from hulls in the future if worded to do so. It also implies that the unit is on the tabletop, although not in anything more decisive than a vague implication.
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.
This part is very interesting since it is where people are tripping up. Anything that hasn't arrived on the battlefield by this point is lost, but the transport rule implies that the unit does count as having been put on the table when it was deployed. Further ;
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.
For example, two players are deploying their armies for the Only
War mission. The mission instructs them to alternate deploying
their units. Player A starts by setting up a unit of Ork Boyz
on the battlefield. Player B then sets up a unit of Intercessors
on the battlefield. Player A then sets up a Battlewagon on the
battlefield – as it is a transport, Player A declares it will start
the battle with a Warboss and a unit of Tankbustas embarked
inside. Player B then sets up a unit of Terminators, but uses
their Teleport Strike ability to set them up in a teleportarium
chamber instead of on the battlefield. Player A then sets up their
next unit, and so on.
There's the punch; the units are inside the transport. The transport is on the battlefield, and the transport rules make no mention of the unit not counting as on the battlefield; only specifies that its rules do not apply while embarked.
This also helps open topped to work; since if the unit was not on the battlefield even though shots were measured too and from the hull for range, it would have no LOS to any units from the PhantomZone.
IMO the way to treat emabked units is as follows
- They count as a single drop during deployment
- They count as being on the battlefield since their transport is, and the transport has no rule sending them to a phantom zone (only a rule that prevents their special rules from taking effect while embarked, further implying that they are on the field).So they count against units held in reserve.
- They dont trigger they destoryed on turn three clause because they're on the battlefield.
- There are no rules permitting units to be grouped together for the purposes of deployment, and in fact several rules exist that do the opposite (like the grot gunners or drone accompanyments)
You've mis-highlighted the part pertaining to the core of the argument
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.
The [Embark] subheading of [Transport] rule specifically tells you to "remove the unit from the battlefield."
Now, according to tactical reserves rule:
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.
When setting up a unit embarked in a transport, they are "removed from the battlefield." Tactical reserves rule requires you to have at least 50% of your army must be "set up on the battlefield."
Say you have an army with 20 unit; 1 transport, 9 single model units, 10 units with deepstrike ability.
If you set up the 9 single model units embarked in a transport, you will need to set up 9 of your units that can deepstrike on the battlefield rather than placing them in reserves locale since you need 10 units, 50% of your total 20 units, set up on the battlefield. In this case, only 1 unit can be set up in its DS locale.
okay thats fair, but at the same time, the only other way for them to word that would be to tell you to pile it up on top of the transport or stick them in your pocket.
It's poorly worded to use "remove from battlefield" rather than "set aside" and needs an FAQ, but RAI is pretty clear given the bit about abilities not working.
davou wrote: okay thats fair, but at the same time, the only other way for them to word that would be to tell you to pile it up on top of the transport or stick them in your pocket.
It's poorly worded to use "remove from battlefield" rather than "set aside" and needs an FAQ, but RAI is pretty clear given the bit about abilities not working.
RaW is RaI by definition. The rules didn't spontaneously appear, they were intentionally written. If they want to change how a rule works, they need to issue an errata (or Special Snowflake FAQ), otherwise RaW is how you play the game, just like EVERY OTHER GAME IN EXISTENCE.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW is RaI by definition. The rules didn't spontaneously appear, they were intentionally written. If they want to change how a rule works, they need to issue an errata (or Special Snowflake FAQ), otherwise RaW is how you play the game, just like EVERY OTHER GAME IN EXISTENCE.
RaW is not always RaI.
If it were then there would be no reason to change rules through errata and or FAQ's.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW is RaI by definition. The rules didn't spontaneously appear, they were intentionally written. If they want to change how a rule works, they need to issue an errata (or Special Snowflake FAQ), otherwise RaW is how you play the game, just like EVERY OTHER GAME IN EXISTENCE.
RaW is not always RaI.
If it were then there would be no reason to change rules through errata and or FAQ's.
P.S. what is a "Special Snowflake FAQ"???
RaW is RaI. They change the RaW and RaI though errata, because they want different RaW and RaI.
A Special Snowflake FAQ is an FAQ that acts as errata, ignoring how the RaW works. Examples include the whole Daemon Stratagem Faction Keyword Nonsense, the Blood Angels Red Grail (in the index anyway) not stacking with Blood Chalice and Index Tank Commanders being prevented from ordering themselves.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW is RaI by definition. The rules didn't spontaneously appear, they were intentionally written. If they want to change how a rule works, they need to issue an errata (or Special Snowflake FAQ), otherwise RaW is how you play the game, just like EVERY OTHER GAME IN EXISTENCE.
RaW is not always RaI.
If it were then there would be no reason to change rules through errata and or FAQ's.
P.S. what is a "Special Snowflake FAQ"???
RaW is RaI. They change the RaW and RaI though errata, because they want different RaW and RaI.
A Special Snowflake FAQ is an FAQ that acts as errata, ignoring how the RaW works. Examples include the whole Daemon Stratagem Faction Keyword Nonsense, the Blood Angels Red Grail (in the index anyway) not stacking with Blood Chalice and Index Tank Commanders being prevented from ordering themselves.
Do you know what the word pedantic means?
Language is imprecise and abstract, that's why the concept of rai and raw exists. What the wording chosen by the writters means on a hardline basis is not always what was intended when the wording was laid out. This happens in games, in law, in contracts and all over the place. Hell this is why there exist specializations in technical writting and copycheck. The only place absolutes exist as you seem to think is in programing and even then only for computers and not the humans using them.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW is RaI by definition. The rules didn't spontaneously appear, they were intentionally written. If they want to change how a rule works, they need to issue an errata (or Special Snowflake FAQ), otherwise RaW is how you play the game, just like EVERY OTHER GAME IN EXISTENCE.
RaW is not always RaI.
If it were then there would be no reason to change rules through errata and or FAQ's.
P.S. what is a "Special Snowflake FAQ"???
RaW is RaI. They change the RaW and RaI though errata, because they want different RaW and RaI.
A Special Snowflake FAQ is an FAQ that acts as errata, ignoring how the RaW works. Examples include the whole Daemon Stratagem Faction Keyword Nonsense, the Blood Angels Red Grail (in the index anyway) not stacking with Blood Chalice and Index Tank Commanders being prevented from ordering themselves.
Do you know what the word pedantic means?
Language is imprecise and abstract, that's why the concept of rai and raw exists. What the wording chosen by the writters means on a hardline basis is not always what was intended when the wording was laid out. This happens in games, in law, in contracts and all over the place. Hell this is why there exist specializations in technical writting and copycheck. The only place absolutes exist as you seem to think is in programing and even then only for computers and not the humans using them.
Look at his signature. He is the very definition of pedantic.
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW is RaI by definition. The rules didn't spontaneously appear, they were intentionally written. If they want to change how a rule works, they need to issue an errata (or Special Snowflake FAQ), otherwise RaW is how you play the game, just like EVERY OTHER GAME IN EXISTENCE.
RaW is not always RaI.
If it were then there would be no reason to change rules through errata and or FAQ's.
P.S. what is a "Special Snowflake FAQ"???
RaW is RaI. They change the RaW and RaI though errata, because they want different RaW and RaI.
A Special Snowflake FAQ is an FAQ that acts as errata, ignoring how the RaW works. Examples include the whole Daemon Stratagem Faction Keyword Nonsense, the Blood Angels Red Grail (in the index anyway) not stacking with Blood Chalice and Index Tank Commanders being prevented from ordering themselves.
That is incorrect. the fact that they change rules through errata and FAQ's show that sometimes RAI is not always what they write in the book, or do you really believe that they wrote the rules for assault weapons knowing that You may not pick a unit that Advanced this turn...
Furthermore FAQ's that change rules have been around for years. That is not news, that is just an FAQ from GW.
BaconCatBug wrote: Wanting a properly written ruleset does not make me pedantic. If WotC can manage it (for all MTGs faults it's rules are written properly), so can GW.
You're telling me NO cards in MTG have erratas because things didnt work exactly as the designers intended? Get over yourself man, You're pedantry tops 9000
Transports and units inside not counting towards 50% reserves rules at deployment has been like that prior to 8th ed.
The main driver for this is that a dedicated transport is no longer locked to the unit it came with and the fact you can transport multiple units to its capacity in 8th that's bringing up this issue.
If something worked in a certain way forever, then a minor rule change comes, breaking the game/that particular rule. It sure doesn't sound like a RAI but an oversight on rulewriting/rule interaction..
BaconCatBug wrote: RaW is RaI by definition. The rules didn't spontaneously appear, they were intentionally written. If they want to change how a rule works, they need to issue an errata (or Special Snowflake FAQ), otherwise RaW is how you play the game, just like EVERY OTHER GAME IN EXISTENCE.
RaW is not always RaI.
If it were then there would be no reason to change rules through errata and or FAQ's.
P.S. what is a "Special Snowflake FAQ"???
RaW is RaI. They change the RaW and RaI though errata, because they want different RaW and RaI.
A Special Snowflake FAQ is an FAQ that acts as errata, ignoring how the RaW works. Examples include the whole Daemon Stratagem Faction Keyword Nonsense, the Blood Angels Red Grail (in the index anyway) not stacking with Blood Chalice and Index Tank Commanders being prevented from ordering themselves.
That is incorrect. the fact that they change rules through errata and FAQ's show that sometimes RAI is not always what they write in the book, or do you really believe that they wrote the rules for assault weapons knowing that You may not pick a unit that Advanced this turn...
Furthermore FAQ's that change rules have been around for years. That is not news, that is just an FAQ from GW.
I wish he’d drop that nonsense. Some FAQs and Errata are literal proof that RAW did not equal RAI. Some *are* a change to RAI, but not all, so *yet again* we have BCB trotting our a fallacy. So boring to see this “I’m always right” justification posted so often, when it’s simply wrong.
By that logic Split Fire is an "oversight", or Overcharged Plasma not allowing a save is an "oversight". What previous editions did has no bearing on what 8th does.
skchsan wrote: Transports and units inside not counting towards 50% reserves rules at deployment has been like that prior to 8th ed.
The main driver for this is that a dedicated transport is no longer locked to the unit it came with and the fact you can transport multiple units to its capacity in 8th that's bringing up this issue.
If something worked in a certain way forever, then a minor rule change comes, breaking the game/that particular rule. It sure doesn't sound like a RAI but an oversight on rulewriting/rule interaction..
I'm sorry but just because it was that way in the past doesn't mean it works that way in the new(er) editions. I agree that the units loaded on the transport count as "on the board" for strategic reserves purposes.
JohnnyHell wrote: The rule is simply badly worded. They’re trying to say “half not deployed in reserve” but muddied it with using “on the battlefield”, leading to the ludicrous claims by some that units in Transports die on turn 4, etc.
This is a great point. If we were to follow RAW from the Tactical Reserves entry on p215, then embarked troops must disembark by turn 3 or die. Just as I have never seen anyone insist on embarked troops counting to the reserves total, I have also never seen anyone insist on troops still embarked at the end of turn 3 count as destroyed. And so it would appear that the convention for both is pretty much established (RAW or not).
It also occurs to me that the writers might have been trying to ensure that there were enough troops that can be affected by an opponent on turn 1. While troops embarked are not on the table they could still be killed if their transport is destroyed. Clearly this is my venture in to speculation as I too cannot tell what the writers meant, but it seems to add another factor in favour of the "convention" adopted.
skchsan wrote: Transports and units inside not counting towards 50% reserves rules at deployment has been like that prior to 8th ed.
The main driver for this is that a dedicated transport is no longer locked to the unit it came with and the fact you can transport multiple units to its capacity in 8th that's bringing up this issue.
If something worked in a certain way forever, then a minor rule change comes, breaking the game/that particular rule. It sure doesn't sound like a RAI but an oversight on rulewriting/rule interaction..
I'm sorry but just because it was that way in the past doesn't mean it works that way in the new(er) editions. I agree that the units loaded on the transport count as "on the board" for strategic reserves purposes.
No one's telling you that you shouldn't play it the way HYWPI. This is a discussion regarding the RAW, and whether the rule is poorly written or not, and as per raw, units starting the games embarked do not count towards having units on board for reserves calculations.
As much as I agree that the common houserule counting embarked = on the battlefield works most of the time, ruling it exactly as RAW prevents the potential exploitation of the reserves rule and embarked units (i.e. valkyrie sqaudron of 3, each carrying 12 single model units resulting in 39 potential deepstrikers with 1 drop deployment). This is as close to null deployment you can get in 8th.
One of the main points 8th ed tried to address as per interviews with the designers was addressing the issue of null deployment - and I think ruling it RAW addresses that problem perfectly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Similarly, if you consider units embarked on a vehicle counting towards having units on the battlefield, it completely nullifies the point of the FAQ addressing flyers and sudden death.
The FAQ was meant to address the stormraven spam - following the above line of logic, the stormraven spam all of a sudden bypasses the sudden death restrictions by paying 55 pt scout tax for them to ride in it for the entirety of the game.
BaconCatBug wrote: By that logic Split Fire is an "oversight", or Overcharged Plasma not allowing a save is an "oversight". What previous editions did has no bearing on what 8th does.
By that logic, this post is a “by that logic” fallacy.
Split fire is expressly permitted by the RAW, although “Split Fire” isn’t a RAW term (you’ve got some edition lag there). So not an oversight by any yardstick.
Plasma doesn’t “not allow a save”, it makes it so most saves aren’t possible as they require impossible results on the save roll. Other saves are possible, such as a Land Raider saving against Hellblasters. Plasma is also expressly intended to savage armour. So not an oversight by any yardstick.
skchsan wrote: Transports and units inside not counting towards 50% reserves rules at deployment has been like that prior to 8th ed.
The main driver for this is that a dedicated transport is no longer locked to the unit it came with and the fact you can transport multiple units to its capacity in 8th that's bringing up this issue.
If something worked in a certain way forever, then a minor rule change comes, breaking the game/that particular rule. It sure doesn't sound like a RAI but an oversight on rulewriting/rule interaction..
I'm sorry but just because it was that way in the past doesn't mean it works that way in the new(er) editions. I agree that the units loaded on the transport count as "on the board" for strategic reserves purposes.
No one's telling you that you shouldn't play it the way HYWPI. This is a discussion regarding the RAW, and whether the rule is poorly written or not, and as per raw, units starting the games embarked do not count towards having units on board for reserves calculations.
As much as I agree that the common houserule counting embarked = on the battlefield works most of the time, ruling it exactly as RAW prevents the potential exploitation of the reserves rule and embarked units (i.e. valkyrie sqaudron of 3, each carrying 12 single model units resulting in 39 potential deepstrikers with 1 drop deployment). This is as close to null deployment you can get in 8th.
One of the main points 8th ed tried to address as per interviews with the designers was addressing the issue of null deployment - and I think ruling it RAW addresses that problem perfectly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Similarly, if you consider units embarked on a vehicle counting towards having units on the battlefield, it completely nullifies the point of the FAQ addressing flyers and sudden death.
The FAQ was meant to address the stormraven spam - following the above line of logic, the stormraven spam all of a sudden bypasses the sudden death restrictions by paying 55 pt scout tax for them to ride in it for the entirety of the game.
Has anyone actually even done that? It would be so points-inefficient as to be laughably uncompetitive, so wouldn’t ever appear. I think you can file the “39 units Valkyrie Squadronl as an ‘internet-only issue’.
BaconCatBug wrote: By that logic Split Fire is an "oversight", or Overcharged Plasma not allowing a save is an "oversight". What previous editions did has no bearing on what 8th does.
By that logic, this post is a “by that logic” fallacy.
Split fire is expressly permitted by the RAW, although “Split Fire” isn’t a RAW term (you’ve got some edition lag there). So not an oversight by any yardstick.
Plasma doesn’t “not allow a save”, it makes it so most saves aren’t possible as they require impossible results on the save roll. Other saves are possible, such as a Land Raider saving against Hellblasters. Plasma is also expressly intended to savage armour. So not an oversight by any yardstick.
Try arguing in good faith once in a while, eh?
I was talking about the mortal wounds caused when you roll a 1 to hit, and splitting fire as an action, not as a rule. As for arguing in good faith, perhaps take your own advice? Arguing RaW is arguing in good faith because THE RULES are what we are discussing.
For someone who is a "Ignore the rules" activist, you're a little hypocritical to be trying to nitpick other peoples posts.
JohnnyHell wrote: The rule is simply badly worded. They’re trying to say “half not deployed in reserve” but muddied it with using “on the battlefield”, leading to the ludicrous claims by some that units in Transports die on turn 4, etc.
This is a great point. If we were to follow RAW from the Tactical Reserves entry on p215, then embarked troops must disembark by turn 3 or die. Just as I have never seen anyone insist on embarked troops counting to the reserves total, I have also never seen anyone insist on troops still embarked at the end of turn 3 count as destroyed. And so it would appear that the convention for both is pretty much established (RAW or not).
It also occurs to me that the writers might have been trying to ensure that there were enough troops that can be affected by an opponent on turn 1. While troops embarked are not on the table they could still be killed if their transport is destroyed. Clearly this is my venture in to speculation as I too cannot tell what the writers meant, but it seems to add another factor in favour of the "convention" adopted.
The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives. They were not trying to penalise you for using Transports to transport stuff. Units in Yansports don’t have the location flexibility a unit in reserve has. But it doesn’t stop people irrationally arguing that rising in a Chimera makes you die on Turn 4. Even writing it like that and demonstrating how laughable the concept is just makes them double down on “BUT RAW SAYS” and meh, let them be intractable. Again, it’s an internet only issue tbh.
BaconCatBug wrote: By that logic Split Fire is an "oversight", or Overcharged Plasma not allowing a save is an "oversight". What previous editions did has no bearing on what 8th does.
By that logic, this post is a “by that logic” fallacy.
Split fire is expressly permitted by the RAW, although “Split Fire” isn’t a RAW term (you’ve got some edition lag there). So not an oversight by any yardstick.
Plasma doesn’t “not allow a save”, it makes it so most saves aren’t possible as they require impossible results on the save roll. Other saves are possible, such as a Land Raider saving against Hellblasters. Plasma is also expressly intended to savage armour. So not an oversight by any yardstick.
Try arguing in good faith once in a while, eh?
I was talking about the mortal wounds caused when you roll a 1 to hit, and splitting fire as an action, not as a rule. As for arguing in good faith, perhaps take your own advice? Arguing RaW is arguing in good faith because THE RULES are what we are discussing.
For someone who is a "Ignore the rules" activist, you're a little hypocritical to be trying to nitpick other peoples posts.
Thanks for the label, but it’s wildly erroneous, based on you disagreeing and needing to tar me in an attempt to discredit me. I follow the rules, and use common sense where they fall apart or generate ridiculous results. You prefer to ignore common sense is your prerogative. Hey, you do you.
JohnnyHell wrote: The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives. They were not trying to penalise you for using Transports to transport stuff. Units in Yansports don’t have the location flexibility a unit in reserve has. But it doesn’t stop people irrationally arguing that rising in a Chimera makes you die on Turn 4. Even writing it like that and demonstrating how laughable the concept is just makes them double down on “BUT RAW SAYS” and meh, let them be intractable. Again, it’s an internet only issue tbh.
Just because you don't like the rule doesn't change it. You're free to make up whatever rules you want in your games, but the majority of us like playing by the rules. Would you accept if all my Space Marines Hit and Wound automatically and have AP-5 weapons because that is what I think the writers "intended"?
As the rules stand, units in transports don't count for 50% on the battlefield, and will die if they don't disembark by turn 3 if they started embarked. This thread was answered immediately and everything else is just people upset the rules don't work the way they want.
JohnnyHell wrote: The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives.
You know this isn't true since the sudden death rule still existed. It was a problem because if you null deploy, you ALWAYS get an extra round over the opponent whether you go first or second.
JohnnyHell wrote: The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives. They were not trying to penalise you for using Transports to transport stuff. Units in Yansports don’t have the location flexibility a unit in reserve has. But it doesn’t stop people irrationally arguing that rising in a Chimera makes you die on Turn 4. Even writing it like that and demonstrating how laughable the concept is just makes them double down on “BUT RAW SAYS” and meh, let them be intractable. Again, it’s an internet only issue tbh.
Just because you don't like the rule doesn't change it. You're free to make up whatever rules you want in your games, but the majority of us like playing by the rules. Would you accept if all my Space Marines Hit and Wound automatically and have AP-5 weapons because that is what I think the writers "intended"?
As the rules stand, units in transports don't count for 50% on the battlefield, and will die if they don't disembark by turn 3 if they started embarked.
Can you ever argue without chucking in a logical fallacy? That Space Marine one is just a variation on your tired T20 Conscripts fallacy.
Whatever your POV I’ve never seen one game or batrep where ANYONE has subscribed to your take on this. So you do you. We’re happy over here playing by the spirit rather than getting hamstrung on the letter of a rule that generates stupidly illogical results. OH SNAP are you arguing RAW vs HIWPI yet again? You could save us all a lot of wasted internet space by not doing that.
JohnnyHell wrote: The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives.
You know this isn't true since the sudden death rule still existed. It was a problem because if you null deploy, you ALWAYS get an extra round over the opponent whether you go first or second.
*sigh* it’s tirinv round here lately. Don’t be so absolutist. You *know* I mean small/minimal deployment. Yes I know the Sudden Death Rule exists.
JohnnyHell wrote: *sigh* it’s tirinv round here lately. Don’t be so absolutist. You *know* I mean small/minimal deployment. Yes I know the Sudden Death Rule exists.
You literally just nitpicked because I capitalised split fire. skchsan makes a valid point and I don't see any rebuttal.
JohnnyHell wrote: Has anyone actually even done that? It would be so points-inefficient as to be laughably uncompetitive, so wouldn’t ever appear. I think you can file the “39 units Valkyrie Squadronl as an ‘internet-only issue’.
Competitive or not, it's the principle at play here. You're more than welcomed to play it as you see fit, but what's being discussed is the RAW here.
Matter of fact, our local gaming group player runs 3 valkyries with each carrying 3 to 6 units each (plasma CMS + characters) then puts his 6 scions in reserves. We rule against it and force him to start some of his units NOT embarked on the valkyrie to make it legal deployment.
Then you’re not playing by the RAW... you’re house ruling to take advantage from the Scion player. Transported units are not in Reserves. Show me where it say units in Transports are in Reserves. You can’t. Units embarked in a Transport share the location of their Transport.
JohnnyHell wrote: Then you’re not playing by the RAW... you’re house ruling to take advantage from the Scion player. Transported units are not in Reserves. Show me where it say units in Transports are in Reserves. You can’t. Units embarked in a Transport share the location of their Transport.
Embarked units are not in reserve. They are simply "removed from battlefield", which would indicate they are "not on battlefield."
Tactical reserves rule does not care how many units are deployed. It only cares about how many units are "on the battlefield" during deployment RAW.
Yes, they share their locale with the transport. However, for all other purposes of rules, they are "not on battlefield" because [Embarking] subheading specifically tells you to "remove the models from the battlefield."
There are two sets of state-related keywords employed in the game: [deployed] and [in reserves], [off the battlefield] and [on the battlefield].
Units deploying the game embarked in a transport is of [deployed], [off the battlefield] status.
Tactical reserves rule requires at least 50% of your army, counted in number of units, to be of [deployed], [on the battlefield] status.
Nowhere does the rule state being embarked is [in reserve], [off the battlefield].
JohnnyHell wrote: Then you’re not playing by the RAW... you’re house ruling to take advantage from the Scion player. Transported units are not in Reserves. Show me where it say units in Transports are in Reserves. You can’t. Units embarked in a Transport share the location of their Transport.
Embarked units are not in reserve. They are simply "removed from battlefield", which would indicate they are "not on battlefield."
Tactical reserves rule does not care how many units are deployed. It only cares about how many units are "on the battlefield" during deployment RAW.
Yes, they share their locale with the transport. However, for all other purposes of rules, they are "not on battlefield" because [Embarking] subheading specifically tells you to "remove the models from the battlefield."
There are two sets of state-related keywords employed in the game: [deployed] and [in reserves], [off the battlefield] and [on the battlefield].
Units deploying the game embarked in a transport is of [deployed], [off the battlefield] status.
Tactical reserves rule requires at least 50% of your army, counted in number of units, to be of [deployed], [on the battlefield] status.
Nowhere does the rule state being embarked is [in reserve], [off the battlefield].
"[deployed], [off the battlefield] status", but embarked inside a transport and "setup in that locale"
Ergo they are in the same locale as the transport (on the battlefield but embarked) while being off the battlefield. So they should count as deployed for the purposes of tactical objectives.
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.
BaconCatBug wrote: Deployed inside a transport is not on the battlefield.
But it is embarked inside, and ‘set up’ in that locale and the Transport is on the battlefield.
Also Tactical Reserves are only talking about unis that are "set up in teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, Etc."
Units in transports are not in Reserve, so they do not have to worry about the Tactical Reserves restriction as Tactical Reserves is only talking about units that "Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment" As I have shown, units in transports are still set up in the same locale as the transport they are in during deployment and not in Reserve.
Therefore You count the units on the battlefield and any transported units if the transport they are riding in is on the battlefield, since the embarked units are "set up in that locale"
Plus you only remove the unit from the battlefield when you embark on a transport. When you start the game embarked, you do not remove the unit from the battlefield.
Bottom like is that embarked units count for how many you have on the battlefield.
BaconCatBug wrote: Deployed inside a transport is not on the battlefield.
But it is embarked inside, and ‘set up’ in that locale and the Transport is on the battlefield.
Also Tactical Reserves are only talking about unis that are "set up in teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, Etc."
Units in transports are not in Reserve, so they do not have to worry about the Tactical Reserves restriction as Tactical Reserves is only talking about units that "Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment" As I have shown, units in transports are still set up in the same locale as the transport they are in during deployment and not in Reserve.
Therefore You count the units on the battlefield and any transported units if the transport they are riding in is on the battlefield, since the embarked units are "set up in that locale"
Plus you only remove the unit from the battlefield when you embark on a transport. When you start the game embarked, you do not remove the unit from the battlefield.
Bottom like is that embarked units count for how many you have on the battlefield.
The "etc" includes inside a transport. "Inside a transport" is not "On the Battlefield", any more than "In Budapest" is the same as "In Prague". The rules for embarking LITERALLY tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield. it can't get any clearer than that.
That is the bottom line, and the beauty of actually following the rules as written.
BaconCatBug wrote: The "etc" includes inside a transport. "Inside a transport" is not "On the Battlefield", any more than "In Budapest" is the same as "In Prague".
No it does not include inside a transport, as they are "set up in that locale" (being embarked in the transport). They are not set up in Reserves, and they have no ability, on their datasheet, that states "instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment..." Ergo they must start on the battlefield. The transport rules allows them to start embarked. The designers commentary FAQ still states they "are embarked inside" (the transport) and the units that are starting embarked "are not separate deployment choices."
This has nothing to do with the tactical Reserves rules though since the unit in the transport does not have the ability to be set up anywhere but the battlefield during deployment.
The rules for embarking LITERALLY tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield. it can't get any clearer than that.
Good thing we don't use the embarking rules at the start of the game. The unit does not embark on the transport at the start of the game. They start embarked already.
That is the bottom line, and the beauty of actually following the rules as written.
I have, you have not followed RAW if you do not count the units that start embarked.
Can you explain then what exactly "instead of being set up on the battlefield" means to you?
So if the units embarked are already "set up on the battlefield" within the said transport, how do they disembark? Disembark rule specifically states you "set it up on the battlefield." How does a unit that's already been set up on the battlefield be set up on the battlefield again? Note, any other consequential movement rules/abilities tell you to simply "set it up so that..." It specifically does not include the term "on the battlefield." However, we see a specific and explicit inclusion of the term "on the battlefield" in the explaination of the action of a unit when it disembarks from a vehicle. Surely, if you are told to put something "here," it must have not been "here" in the first place; otherwise, there would be no point of telling you to put it "here" since it was already "here."
Thus, if you are told to "set it up on the battlefield," it must have not been "set up on the battlefield," but somewhere else that is specifically not "on the battlefield." Therefore, if a unit is embarked on a transport, it is not on the battlefield.
skchsan wrote: Can you explain then what exactly "instead of being set up on the battlefield" means to you?
It means the Datasheet for the unit has an ability that allows it to be in Reserves "instead of being set up on the battlefield"
Space Marine Scouts do not have any ability on their Datasheet that allow them to be set up anywhere "instead of being set up on the battlefield"
Same goes for Ork boys, and a ton of different units.
On the other hand, units with Jump Packs, and Terminator armour etc., do have an ability on their Datasheet that allows them to deploy elsewhere "instead of being set up on the battlefield"
And to your edit:
It does not matter if they are not on the battlefield, They are Embarked at the start of the game. The unit does not embark on the transport at the start of the game. They start embarked already.
40kBRB wrote: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 instead of deploying outside the transport, they are embarked within the transport.
40k Designers commentary wrote:When you choose to set up a transport, declare what units (if any) are embarked inside – these are not separate deployment choices.
The unit inside a transport are embarked inside. They are not separate deployment choices. They both deploy at the same time. at the location you deploy the transport.
They are not set up in Reserves. and since the transport is on the battlefield, and a unit inside a transport is embarked in the transport, they must be in the same location.
You first need to understand that "off the battlefield" =/= "in reserve". It may get confusing because being "deployed" may sound synonimous to being set up "on the battlefield. However, these are two independent sets of operative syntax the game utilizes, although they are closely intertwined. It is important that you understand these are not "if, then must" situations in all cases.
Barring rare exceptions:
If [in reserves], it must be [off battlefield]
If [deployed], it can be either [on battlefield] or [off battlefield]
If [off battlefield], it can be either [deployed] or [in reserves]
If [on battlefield], it must be [deployed]
Being off the battlefield doesn't always have to do with being in reserve. The term "locale" is merely a mental construct that tells you where, which otherwise is, the "not on battlefield" the units are temporarily located at since, lets face it, it would be ridiculous to place the units in "high orbit", 100' above the gameboard to represent it, or design a "teleportarium" that you have to have placed outside of the gameboard to represent that units inside it will be entering via teleportation.
Let's note that the rules from transports do not actually say that they do not count as being on the battlefield; rather only specifies that their abilities do not work while they are embarked unless otherwise stated.
Well, only if you ignore the section in embarking "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." That seems a very good indication that the unit does not count as being on the battlefield.
BaconCatBug wrote: Deployed inside a transport is not on the battlefield.
But it is embarked inside, and ‘set up’ in that locale and the Transport is on the battlefield.
Also Tactical Reserves are only talking about unis that are "set up in teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, Etc."
Units in transports are not in Reserve, so they do not have to worry about the Tactical Reserves restriction as Tactical Reserves is only talking about units that "Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment" As I have shown, units in transports are still set up in the same locale as the transport they are in during deployment and not in Reserve.
Therefore You count the units on the battlefield and any transported units if the transport they are riding in is on the battlefield, since the embarked units are "set up in that locale"
Plus you only remove the unit from the battlefield when you embark on a transport. When you start the game embarked, you do not remove the unit from the battlefield.
Bottom like is that embarked units count for how many you have on the battlefield.
The "etc" includes inside a transport. "Inside a transport" is not "On the Battlefield", any more than "In Budapest" is the same as "In Prague". The rules for embarking LITERALLY tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield. it can't get any clearer than that.
That is the bottom line, and the beauty of actually following the rules as written.
The beauty is what... bizarre unintended occurrences where Chimeras eat Guardsmen? Yeah sure, “beauty”. I think you’re also ignoring other RAW elements like the FAQ and only choosing to read the RAW you think supports your view. But what’s new?
Let's note that the rules from transports do not actually say that they do not count as being on the battlefield; rather only specifies that their abilities do not work while they are embarked unless otherwise stated.
Well, only if you ignore the section in embarking "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." That seems a very good indication that the unit does not count as being on the battlefield.
That simply means “don’t balance all your dudes on the tank - pop them to one side and remember they’re inside”. It’s not the same as Teleportarium/webway/etc. deployment.
Let's note that the rules from transports do not actually say that they do not count as being on the battlefield; rather only specifies that their abilities do not work while they are embarked unless otherwise stated.
Well, only if you ignore the section in embarking "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." That seems a very good indication that the unit does not count as being on the battlefield.
That simply means “don’t balance all your dudes on the tank - pop them to one side and remember they’re inside”. It’s not the same as Teleportarium/webway/etc. deployment.
EDIT: if it means only "don't balance all your dudes on the tank" then they could have said "remove the models". They didn't; they said "remove the unit from the battlefield". That's a specific statement about the location of the unit.
I didn't say it was the same as the other deployment. But, being told to remove the unit from the battlefield when embarking means exactly what it says - they are no longer on the battlefield. Just as being told to "set up on the battlefield" when disembarking means you are now being set up on the battlefield, which means they weren't on the battlefield before. That doesn't mean they are necessarily in reserves, but it does mean that they are off the table. Since the requirement for how many units you must have on the board is at least 50% on the table, by RAW it doesn't matter if they're in reserves or not. It just matters whether they are on the table or off the table.
They really should have said "not in reserves" if that is what they meant, not "on the battlefield". I can see, though, that they might have done specifically so that someone doesn't spam 12 characters into a Chimera and have that allow 13 units to deep strike. Then again, I think it's more likely that they just didn't think about the difference between "not in reserves" and "on the battlefield".
is that 6 Scion units in the Valkyrie? If so, by RAW it's one unit on the battlefield and you'd need to put 5 more units on the table before you could put anything else in reserves off the table beyond what's in the Valkyrie. .
I'm perfectly fine making agreements before the game that units in transports don't count as being where their transport is for "on the batlefield" status; however, you asked what's legal. Barring house rules embarked units are not on the battlefield, as they are removed from the battlefield when they are embarked.
RAW BaconCatBug is right because the tactical reserves states that you must deploy with 50% of your units on the battlefield. The rule doesn't say you have to have 50% not in reserves, they specify that the 50% must be on the battlefield. I agree that they were trying to clear it up with the faq where they stated that units in transports are in the same locale as the transport but sadly it wasn't written in a way that states those units are considered on the battlefield. Of course I have yet t have a game where anyone has argued that stance though. We've all agreed that RAI is units in transports count as on the battlefield for the purposes of reserves. (It really doesn't affect me as I footslog with my armies)
Let's note that the rules from transports do not actually say that they do not count as being on the battlefield; rather only specifies that their abilities do not work while they are embarked unless otherwise stated.
Well, only if you ignore the section in embarking "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." That seems a very good indication that the unit does not count as being on the battlefield.
And as I have pointed out, The unit does not embark on the transport at the start of the game. They start embarked already.
So you do not "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." they do not use the embark rules that tell you to remove them. They simply start embarked.
The rules for embarking onto a transport do not have any bearing here. They are Embarked and in the same location. (Which is literally what embarked means). Therefore they must be counted just like the transport they are embarked upon is counted. Transport and a single unit embarked = 2 units on the battlefield for Reserves purposes.
40kBRB wrote: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.
40k Designers commentary wrote:When you choose to set up a transport, declare what units (if any) are embarked inside – these are not separate deployment choices.
So instead of deploying outside the transport, they are embarked within the transport. They are not separate deployment choices. They are deployed together within the deployment zone and since you deploy onto the battlefield both transport and units inside (if any) are deployed. and must be on the battlefield.
Zarroc1733 wrote: RAW BaconCatBug is right because the tactical reserves states that you must deploy with 50% of your units on the battlefield.
He is not correct, as I have pointed out. units embarked are deployed...
DeathReaper wrote: He is not correct, as I have pointed out. units embarked are deployed...
What part of "On the battlefield" is unclear to you? Not trying to be snide, genuinely asking. A unit that is embarked is not on the battlefield. The rules for embarking literally tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield.
DeathReaper wrote: He is not correct, as I have pointed out. units embarked are deployed...
What part of "On the battlefield" is unclear to you? Not trying to be snide, genuinely asking. A unit that is embarked is not on the battlefield. The rules for embarking literally tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield.
You're pretty upset when someone is as pedantic as you He's right. Technically deployed units never have to embark, they just start that way. Rules inside of the embark mechanic dont apply.
Let's note that the rules from transports do not actually say that they do not count as being on the battlefield; rather only specifies that their abilities do not work while they are embarked unless otherwise stated.
Well, only if you ignore the section in embarking "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." That seems a very good indication that the unit does not count as being on the battlefield.
And as I have pointed out, The unit does not embark on the transport at the start of the game. They start embarked already.
So you do not "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." they do not use the embark rules that tell you to remove them. They simply start embarked.
The rules for embarking onto a transport do not have any bearing here. They are Embarked and in the same location. (Which is literally what embarked means). Therefore they must be counted just like the transport they are embarked upon is counted. Transport and a single unit embarked = 2 units on the battlefield for Reserves purposes.
40kBRB wrote: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.
40k Designers commentary wrote:When you choose to set up a transport, declare what units (if any) are embarked inside – these are not separate deployment choices.
So instead of deploying outside the transport, they are embarked within the transport. They are not separate deployment choices. They are deployed together within the deployment zone and since you deploy onto the battlefield both transport and units inside (if any) are deployed. and must be on the battlefield.
Being separate deployment choices has no bearing on the tactical reserves rule. If embarking (the process of being embarked) removes a unit from the battlefield then the unit can not be on the battlefield when embarked. If the game states that embarking removes the units, then being embarked means the units are removed.
DeathReaper wrote: He is not correct, as I have pointed out. units embarked are deployed...
What part of "On the battlefield" is unclear to you? Not trying to be snide, genuinely asking. A unit that is embarked is not on the battlefield. The rules for embarking literally tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield.
You're pretty upset when someone is as pedantic as you He's right. Technically deployed units never have to embark, they just start that way. Rules inside of the embark mechanic dont apply.
Actually, yes they do.
BRB Page 183 wrote: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 the word "Embarked"? Now, where would we find such rules? The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action.
BRB Page 183 wrote: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.
So, we have a rule that alters the method of embarking, by setting them up embarked during deployment instead of having to move within 3" of it. The rest of the rule, removing the unit from the battlefield included, still applies.
"Pedantic" isn't a synonym for "making up rules", nor is it a synonym for "following the rules as written in the rulebook".
What "upsets" me is that this rule is literally as clear as the rule that models that can FLY can shoot after falling back, yet people are still arguing about it because they dislike how it works.
BRB Page 183 wrote:
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.
So, we have a rule that alters the method of embarking, by setting them up embarked during deployment instead of having to move within 3" of it. The rest of the rule, removing the unit from the battlefield included, still applies.
and before the game did those models move and end their move within three inches of the transport? Being embarked and embarking is not the same thing.
BRB Page 183 wrote: 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. So, we have a rule that alters the method of embarking, by setting them up embarked during deployment instead of having to move within 3" of it. The rest of the rule, removing the unit from the battlefield included, still applies.
and before the game did those models move and end their move within three inches of the transport? Being embarked and embarking is not the same thing.
Did you not read my post? The rule about deployment is a modifier to how a unit embarked. The actual rules for being embarked do not change. There is not some sort of psudo-embarked state deployed models occupy. They are embarked, and not on the battlefield.
Even if we pretend they aren't embarked, they aren't on the battlefield regardless.
BRB Page 183 wrote:
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.
So, we have a rule that alters the method of embarking, by setting them up embarked during deployment instead of having to move within 3" of it. The rest of the rule, removing the unit from the battlefield included, still applies.
and before the game did those models move and end their move within three inches of the transport? Being embarked and embarking is not the same thing.
But that's a basic rule of English. To be sitting you have to sit. If you stand you are standing. It is the action of entering a state. If you must remove models in the act of embarking, and the act of embarking never brings those models back then the models are removed when they are embarked.
BRB Page 183 wrote:
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.
So, we have a rule that alters the method of embarking, by setting them up embarked during deployment instead of having to move within 3" of it. The rest of the rule, removing the unit from the battlefield included, still applies.
and before the game did those models move and end their move within three inches of the transport? Being embarked and embarking is not the same thing.
Did you not read my post? The rule about deployment is a modifier to how a unit embarked. The actual rules for being embarked do not change. There is not some sort of psudo-embarked state deployed models occupy. They are embarked, and not on the battlefield.
Even if we pretend they aren't embarked, they aren't on the battlefield regardless.
DeathReaper wrote: He is not correct, as I have pointed out. units embarked are deployed...
What part of "On the battlefield" is unclear to you? Not trying to be snide, genuinely asking. A unit that is embarked is not on the battlefield. The rules for embarking literally tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield.
As I have pointed out, you DO NOT use the rules for embarking onto a transport, so you DO NOT remove the unit from the battlefield. The Rules of the embark mechanic do not apply ever.
The unit starts embarked and is deployed with the transport.
Zarroc1733 wrote: Being separate deployment choices has no bearing on the tactical reserves rule. If embarking (the process of being embarked) removes a unit from the battlefield then the unit can not be on the battlefield when embarked.
Got any rules quotes that say this, because the rules for being embarked do not say that the unit is not on the battlefield.
If the game states that embarking removes the units, then being embarked means the units are removed.
Again are there any rules that say this?
Simply being embarked is not what removes the unit from the battlefield.
The rules for embarking do that, and we do not use the rules for embarking when a unit starts the game inside a transport.
DeathReaper wrote: As I have pointed out, you DO NOT use the rules for embarking onto a transport, so you DO NOT remove the unit from the battlefield. The Rules of the embark mechanic do not apply ever.
BRB Page 183 wrote: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 the word "Embarked"? Now, where would we find such rules? The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action.
BRB Page 183 wrote: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.
So, we have a rule that alters the method of embarking, by setting them up embarked during deployment instead of having to move within 3" of it. The rest of the rule, removing the unit from the battlefield included, still applies.
"Pedantic" isn't a synonym for "making up rules", nor is it a synonym for "following the rules as written in the rulebook".
What "upsets" me is that this rule is literally as clear as the rule that models that can FLY can shoot after falling back, yet people are still arguing about it because they dislike how it works.
But that's a basic rule of English. To be sitting you have to sit. If you stand you are standing. It is the action of entering a state. If you must remove models in the act of embarking, and the act of embarking never brings those models back then the models are removed when they are embarked.
If someone throws you on your ass in a match of judo have you sat down? But again this is pedantics.
The game has a start state; the games start in that state. rules for embarking dont apply for the setup anymore than movement rules do. You don't need to walk a tactical space marine squad in 6 inch incriments to their deployment space anymore than you need to Embark the units in their transports at the start of the game.
davou wrote: The game has a start state; the games start in that state. rules for embarking dont apply for the setup anymore than movement rules do. You don't need to walk a tactical space marine squad in 6 inch incriments to their deployment space anymore than you need to Embark the units in their transports at the start of the game.
Can you quote us on this, or is it purely your understanding of the rule and the game?
I'd like to declare that the "start state" of my Ravenwings as though they had advanced at the start of the game so I get Jink rule in effect. I mean, if they are more than 14" from my board edge, they must've had "advanced" since I can only move 14" per turn with them. I can't seem to find a rule that lets me pick a "start state" for them.
Let's note that the rules from transports do not actually say that they do not count as being on the battlefield; rather only specifies that their abilities do not work while they are embarked unless otherwise stated.
Well, only if you ignore the section in embarking "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." That seems a very good indication that the unit does not count as being on the battlefield.
And as I have pointed out, The unit does not embark on the transport at the start of the game. They start embarked already.
So you do not "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." they do not use the embark rules that tell you to remove them. They simply start embarked.
So, a unit's status is that it is off the table except if it is deployed at the start in a transport on the table? Sorry, the rules don't work that way. Being off the table when embarking applies all the time.
DeathReaper wrote: The rules for embarking onto a transport do not have any bearing here. They are Embarked and in the same location. (Which is literally what embarked means). Therefore they must be counted just like the transport they are embarked upon is counted. Transport and a single unit embarked = 2 units on the battlefield for Reserves purposes.
That's simply not true. The unit starts embarked, but the rules for being embarked still apply, This means that being off the table still applies.
davou wrote: The game has a start state; the games start in that state. rules for embarking dont apply for the setup anymore than movement rules do. You don't need to walk a tactical space marine squad in 6 inch incriments to their deployment space anymore than you need to Embark the units in their transports at the start of the game.
Can you quote us on this, or is it purely your understanding of the rule and the game?
I'd like to declare that the "start state" of my Ravenwings as though they had advanced at the start of the game so I get Jink rule in effect. I mean, if they are more than 14" from my board edge, they must've had "advanced" since I can only move 14" per turn with them. I can't seem to find a rule that lets me pick a "start state" for them.
Spoiler:
TheDefender now sets up all of their units, anywhere on the battlefield. TheAttacker’s units do not start the
game on the battlefield, but use the Planetary Assault
rules
In Planetstrike missions, the
Attacker’s units are not set up on
the battlefield during deployment
and instead start the game in
Reserve. INFANTRY units and
units that can FLY start the game
in orbit, whilst other units start the
game in a landing zone, just off one
edge of the battlefield.
If a mission uses Reserves, it will detail which units in
your army start the game in Reserve – these units are not deployed with the rest of your army.
DeathReaper wrote: As I have pointed out, you DO NOT use the rules for embarking onto a transport, so you DO NOT remove the unit from the battlefield. The Rules of the embark mechanic do not apply ever.
BRB Page 183 wrote: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 the word "Embarked"? Now, where would we find such rules? The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action.
BRB Page 183 wrote: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.
So, we have a rule that alters the method of embarking, by setting them up embarked during deployment instead of having to move within 3" of it. The rest of the rule, removing the unit from the battlefield included, still applies.
"Pedantic" isn't a synonym for "making up rules", nor is it a synonym for "following the rules as written in the rulebook".
What "upsets" me is that this rule is literally as clear as the rule that models that can FLY can shoot after falling back, yet people are still arguing about it because they dislike how it works.
No they do not. your argument does not hold any water. Specifically the "The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action." which we clearly know is false because units that start the game embarked never used "the 'Embark' action."
Removing the unit from the battlefield can not apply because the unit in question has not yet been deployed.
Embarked is a state of a unit. There are two ways to achieve this. One is to end every models movement within 3 inches of a transport. The other is to start the game embarked.
Units that start embarked never end their move within 3 inches so those rules simply do not apply.
What "upsets" me is that this rule is literally as clear as the rule that models that can FLY, but you are still arguing to the contrary.
davou wrote: The game has a start state; the games start in that state. rules for embarking dont apply for the setup anymore than movement rules do. You don't need to walk a tactical space marine squad in 6 inch incriments to their deployment space anymore than you need to Embark the units in their transports at the start of the game.
Can you quote us on this, or is it purely your understanding of the rule and the game?
I'd like to declare that the "start state" of my Ravenwings as though they had advanced at the start of the game so I get Jink rule in effect. I mean, if they are more than 14" from my board edge, they must've had "advanced" since I can only move 14" per turn with them. I can't seem to find a rule that lets me pick a "start state" for them.
If there were any actual rules for that, you could start "as though they had advanced at the start of the game" but Ravenwings do not have any rules like that. Being embarked does however.
DeathReaper wrote: If there were any actual rules for that, you could start "as though they had advanced at the start of the game" but Ravenwings do not have any rules like that. Being embarked does however.
Except, as has been quite clearly shown, it doesn't.
DeathReaper wrote: No they do not. your argument does not hold any water. Specifically the "The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action." which we clearly know is false because units that start the game embarked never used "the 'Embark' action."
Removing the unit from the battlefield can not apply because the unit in question has not yet been deployed..[/quote
Yet they have defined a state of not being on the battlefield as a prerequisite of being embarked, which still applies if you star the game that say (BCB highlighted the appropriate sections in his quote).
If the unit is considered on the battlefield, then how can you be seeting it up on the battlefield when disembarking if it's all ready consideered to be there? They'd say it's a REdeployment or something indicating that it's not a state change. This is, a state change, however. It goes from not being on the battlefield to being set up on the battlefield when disembarking. That's another problem with your (incorrect) interpretation.
DeathReaper wrote: No they do not. your argument does not hold any water. Specifically the "The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action." which we clearly know is false because units that start the game embarked never used "the 'Embark' action."
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. If a unit begins the game embarked in a transport, it has embarked in a transport. The act of embarking, or as you say the "Embark" action, embarks you on a transport. If you are in the "inside a transport" locale, you are embarked in the transport.
DeathReaper wrote: Removing the unit from the battlefield can not apply because the unit in question has not yet been deployed.
This is a direct contradiction to your previous statements claiming that units embarked on a transports are considered a single deployment choice. Are you stating being a deployment choice =/= being deployed?
DeathReaper wrote: Embarked is a state of a unit. There are two ways to achieve this. One is to end every models movement within 3 inches of a transport. The other is to start the game embarked.
No, embarked is not a state of a unit. it is a 'locale' that exists in a 'off battlefield' state. The citation for this has been provided numerous times.
"if units are within 3"... remove the model from the battlefield... it is now embarked in the transport."
The sequence of operation clearly indicates that; it must be X" away, must be removed from transport. Once the conditions are met, they are considered to be embarked.
DeathReaper wrote: Units that start embarked never end their move within 3 inches so those rules simply do not apply.
If they're already embarked, they don't need to be in 3" of a transport. They are already embarked.
DeathReaper wrote: What "upsets" me is that this rule is literally as clear as the rule that models that can FLY, but you are still arguing to the contrary.
It really doesn't, but what "upsets" me is that you refuse to read all of the other pertinent posts and purposely ignore explanations of others, constantly REPEAT yourself without providing any further elaboration of the rationale behind your understanding of the rule, consistently contradict yourself whenever and whereever suits your current post, and just screaming "no you're wrong!"
DeathReaper wrote: No they do not. your argument does not hold any water. Specifically the "The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action." which we clearly know is false because units that start the game embarked never used "the 'Embark' action."
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. If a unit begins the game embarked in a transport, it has embarked in a transport. The act of embarking, or as you say the "Embark" action, embarks you on a transport. If you are in the "inside a transport" locale, you are embarked in the transport.
It has not used the Embark rules though. it uses the rules that allow it to start embarked without ever using the rules for embarking.
DeathReaper wrote: Removing the unit from the battlefield can not apply because the unit in question has not yet been deployed.
This is a direct contradiction to your previous statements claiming that units embarked on a transports are considered a single deployment choice. Are you stating being a deployment choice =/= being deployed?
Maybe you did not understand what I wrote.
starting embarked does not = using the rules for embarking the unit.
DeathReaper wrote: Embarked is a state of a unit. There are two ways to achieve this. One is to end every models movement within 3 inches of a transport. The other is to start the game embarked.
No, embarked is not a state of a unit. it is a 'locale' that exists in a 'off battlefield' state. The citation for this has been provided numerous times.
"if units are within 3"... remove the model from the battlefield... it is now embarked in the transport."
The sequence of operation clearly indicates that; it must be X" away, must be removed from transport. Once the conditions are met, they are considered to be embarked.
It is not a " 'locale' that exists in a 'off battlefield' state." because you can be embarked without ever being within 3 inches and embarking.
The "if units are within 3"" is how you embark, that sequence of operation is only for units that want to embark after units have deployed, but that does not happen during deployment.
DeathReaper wrote: Units that start embarked never end their move within 3 inches so those rules simply do not apply.
If they're already embarked, they don't need to be in 3" of a transport. They are already embarked.
During deployment they will never be able to emabark by being within 3 inches. They use those rules in the movement phase, not during deployment.
They are embarked because of the deployment rules, not because of they were within 3 inches and embarked after the game started. This is the major point you are missing.
DeathReaper wrote: What "upsets" me is that this rule is literally as clear as the rule that models that can FLY, but you are still arguing to the contrary.
It really doesn't, but what "upsets" me is that you refuse to read all of the other pertinent posts and purposely ignore explanations of others, constantly REPEAT yourself without providing any further elaboration of the rationale behind your understanding of the rule, consistently contradict yourself whenever and whereever suits your current post, and just screaming "no you're wrong!"
I have read the posts, and your arguments do not hold water as I have clearly explained.
I never contradicted myself. and the repeat is because it seems like your posts miss the rules I have shown or are not being taken into consideration. and I never screamed - "no you're wrong!"
40k Designers commentary wrote:
When you choose to set up a transport, declare what units (if any) are embarked inside – these are not separate deployment choices.
This is nor sayibg that embarked units do not count as deployed.
This is saying when a player gets to deploy a unit of their choice they can deploy the transport and the embarked units as that choice.
Otherwise there would have to be a rule to let a player deploy multiple choices at once then the next player deploys however many that was, which makes no sense.
Or you would deploy the transport and as a later choice deploy units one at a time into the transport, which the rules also don't have anything to cover.
No where in that passage does it say the units deployed in a transport are not deployed or don't count, the choice is referring when a player has a turn to deploy a unit choice during deployment.
Don't remember the exact order, but I think you check to see if the vehicle explodes first, then deal that damage.
After that you check for embarked casualties and then place your disembarking models before picking up the wrecked vehicle.
This is correct.
You check to see if the vehicle explodes, if it does, you measure to the units in range. The embarked unit can not be measured to at this point because it is not on the battlefield yet. So they only suffer the other effects.
So... Are units in embarked in a transport on the battlefield or not? It seems like you've already said otherwise in agreement that embarked units are not on battlefield...
So, if a unit starts the game embarked on a transport, it is on the battlefield, but after the deployment, the embarked units are not on the battlefield?
Frankly, do you even recall what it is that you're arguing about/for? As a reminder, this is a thread about whether units that start the game embarked on a transport counting towards having models on the battlefield.
DeathReaper wrote: No they do not. your argument does not hold any water. Specifically the "The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action." which we clearly know is false because units that start the game embarked never used "the 'Embark' action."
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. If a unit begins the game embarked in a transport, it has embarked in a transport. The act of embarking, or as you say the "Embark" action, embarks you on a transport. If you are in the "inside a transport" locale, you are embarked in the transport.
It has not used the Embark rules though. it uses the rules that allow it to start embarked without ever using the rules for embarking.
Actually, yes you have used the embark rules. "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked instead of being set up separately - declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up." Otherwise, you couldn't start the game embarked in the transport. You still have the condition of them being embarked in the transport, which they have defined as the unit being off the battlefield and set to the side.
DeathReaper wrote: No they do not. your argument does not hold any water. Specifically the "The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action." which we clearly know is false because units that start the game embarked never used "the 'Embark' action."
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. If a unit begins the game embarked in a transport, it has embarked in a transport. The act of embarking, or as you say the "Embark" action, embarks you on a transport. If you are in the "inside a transport" locale, you are embarked in the transport.
It has not used the Embark rules though. it uses the rules that allow it to start embarked without ever using the rules for embarking.
Actually, yes you have used the embark rules. "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked instead of being set up separately - declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up." Otherwise, you couldn't start the game embarked in the transport. You still have the condition of them being embarked in the transport, which they have defined as the unit being off the battlefield and set to the side.
No, they dont have to embark. Units dont need to embark at the start of the game any more than another unit would need to have fly to be deployed across terrain as if it were not there. The game hasn't yet started, so the rules that govern how models move during the game do not apply. Only the rules governing deployment.
Implying that movement rule apply to deploying is as silly as implying that those same rules apply to how you carry your models into the game shop to play some games.
If the embarking rule applies, then deployement inside of a transport is illegal beause the models can never satisfy the clause of ending their movement within three of the transport because theres no movement phase during deployment.
DeathReaper wrote: No they do not. your argument does not hold any water. Specifically the "The only rules that deal with the state of "embarked" is the "Embark" action." which we clearly know is false because units that start the game embarked never used "the 'Embark' action."
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. If a unit begins the game embarked in a transport, it has embarked in a transport. The act of embarking, or as you say the "Embark" action, embarks you on a transport. If you are in the "inside a transport" locale, you are embarked in the transport.
It has not used the Embark rules though. it uses the rules that allow it to start embarked without ever using the rules for embarking.
Actually, yes you have used the embark rules. "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked instead of being set up separately - declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up." Otherwise, you couldn't start the game embarked in the transport. You still have the condition of them being embarked in the transport, which they have defined as the unit being off the battlefield and set to the side.
No, they dont have to embark. Units dont need to embark at the start of the game any more than another unit would need to have fly to be deployed across terrain as if it were not there. The game hasn't yet started, so the rules that govern how models move during the game do not apply. Only the rules governing deployment.
Implying that movement rule apply to deploying is as silly as implying that those same rules apply to how you carry your models into the game shop to play some games.
If the embarking rule applies, then deployement inside of a transport is illegal beause the models can never satisfy the clause of ending their movement within three of the transport.
Units that are embarked have the properties of what they describe for units that are embarked. The main properties they describe are that they are in the transport, and that they are not on the battlefield.
If that doesn't apply, then you never get to use the disembarking rules for units that start the game embarked, since you can't set up on the battlefield if you're already considered on the battlefield. You nave to be not on the battlefield in order to set up on the battlefield.
Units that are embarked have the properties of what they describe for units that are embarked. The main properties they describe are that they are in the transport, and that they are not on the battlefield.
If that doesn't apply, then you never get to use the disembarking rules for units that start the game embarked, since you can't set up on the battlefield if you're already considered on the battlefield. You nave to be not on the battlefield in order to set up on the battlefield.
wrong
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
Disembarking stipulates only that they count as 'embarked;. The deployment rules that allows the unit to begin embarked satifsfies this without having to invoke the embarking rules themselves.
Units that are embarked have the properties of what they describe for units that are embarked. The main properties they describe are that they are in the transport, and that they are not on the battlefield.
If that doesn't apply, then you never get to use the disembarking rules for units that start the game embarked, since you can't set up on the battlefield if you're already considered on the battlefield. You nave to be not on the battlefield in order to set up on the battlefield.
wrong
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[u] 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
Disembarking stipulates only that they count as 'embarked;. The deployment rules that allows the unit to begin embarked satifsfies this without having to invoke the embarking rules themselves.
Look at the highlighted section. If the unit's already considered set up on the battlefield, you can't set up on the battlefield because you're already there; that's an illegal action without being told to have them removed from the battlefield before "redeploying". That means that you're wrong about them being on the battlefield to start with.
why can't you set a unit on the battle field if they are already on the battlefield? I cant think of at least one other instance where thats a perfectly legal action in the game; Moving a unit.
The rule is really poorly written, and can be argued to work both ways with varying degree's of efficiency, but the intent is very clear. My point has only been this so far; If getting toxically pedantic is required to understand how the rule works, then it can be done both ways.
OTHERWISE we can take the half second it requires to look past the poor wording and play the game the way the designers had intended us to; Models deployed in a transport count against the 50% reserve rule.
davou wrote: why can't you set a unit on the battle field if they are already on the battlefield? I cant think of at least one other instance where thats a perfectly legal action in the game; Moving a unit.
Because they are already set up on the battlefield. If you're set up on the battlefield you are already there and therefore don't need to be set up. There are powers and such whcih remove you from the board then redeploy - that's a situation where you set up on the board again, but there is a a distinct statement there about being removed from the board first. You don't have them saying set up on the board if you're already there. If you're deployed on the board, you don't deploy on the board later.
davou wrote: OTHERWISE we can take the half second it requires to look past the poor wording and play the game the way the designers had intended us to; Models deployed in a transport count against the 50% reserve rule.
What did they intend? Did they intend to stop people from putting 13 units in reserve when somebody sticks 12 characters in a Chimera and deploys that in one drop? Or did they mean to allow it?
Still, you've totally gone from a RAW argument to a HIWPI argument (not even RAI since the RAI isn't as clear as you intimate). I have no problem with people house ruling that they count as on the board. Just don't call it RAW.
Edit: Asking from a PURELY RAW STANDPOINT. Not How You Would Play It, just what the rules actually say.
phyiscally in the material universe, they are wherever you decide to put them. For purposes of the game, they are inside that transport; with restrictions that disalow them from affecting of being affected by the game unless some rule permits it.
Did they intend to stop people from putting 13 units in reserve when somebody sticks 12 characters in a Chimera and deploys that in one drop? Or did they mean to allow it?
Edit: Asking from a PURELY RAW STANDPOINT. Not How You Would Play It, just what the rules actually say.
phyiscally in the material universe, they are wherever you decide to put them. For purposes of the game, they are inside that transport; with restrictions that disalow them from affecting of being affected by the game unless some rule permits it.
So are they on the battlefield? Because, if they ARE on the battlefield, they CANNOT disembark. You can't set up on the battlefield if you're already there.
Edit: Asking from a PURELY RAW STANDPOINT. Not How You Would Play It, just what the rules actually say.
phyiscally in the material universe, they are wherever you decide to put them. For purposes of the game, they are inside that transport; with restrictions that disalow them from affecting of being affected by the game unless some rule permits it.
So are they on the battlefield? Because, if they ARE on the battlefield, they CANNOT disembark. You can't set up on the battlefield if you're already there.
Edit: Asking from a PURELY RAW STANDPOINT. Not How You Would Play It, just what the rules actually say.
phyiscally in the material universe, they are wherever you decide to put them. For purposes of the game, they are inside that transport; with restrictions that disalow them from affecting of being affected by the game unless some rule permits it.
And what does the rulebook say when you need to "phyiscally in the material universe, they are wherever you decide to put them."?
Do you need a section in the rulebook that lists which words from the English language are and aren't allowed to describe the game as well?
As far as the game is concerned, those models are in your transport.
Disembarking makes no requirement that they be off the battlefield, only that the be 'embarked'.
Starting the game with units embarked does not invoke the rules for embarking, because those apply to the movement phase and there is no movement phase during deployment.
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.
If those rules mattered then units could never start embarked, as the rule has an IF clause at the start thats impossible to satisfy without being at least into turn one.
davou wrote: Do you need a section in the rulebook that lists which words from the English language are and aren't allowed to describe the game as well?
As far as the game is concerned, those models are in your transport.
Disembarking makes no requirement that they be off the battlefield, only that the be 'embarked'.
Starting the game with units embarked does not invoke the rules for embarking, because those apply to the movement phase and there is no movement phase during deployment.
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.
If those rules mattered then units could never start embarked, as the rule has an IF clause at the start thats impossible to satisfy without being at least into turn one.
Why do you refuse to cite us the section we're asking you to cite? Is it because it would unravel your argument?
Edit: what does it say to do when you're transferring a units locale to 'inside the transport'?
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.
It says that; they are inside. Are you trying to imply that the game breaks unless I saw my transports open and shove the models inside of them?
Taking models off the table is an abstraction. Just like the shooting phase is an abstraction. You dont need an actual railgun to play a broadsides shooting phase anymore than you need to have your tiny plastic men actually climb inside of your tiny plastic tank.
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.
This rule is worded poorly, and even if it wasnt it does not pretain to the deployment phase because it specifically calls out movement as a requirement for the latter part of its text. If Green then you may red. During deployment Green is not possible so this is moot.
It says that; they are inside. Are you trying to imply that the game breaks unless I saw my transports open and shove the models inside of them?
Taking models off the table is an abstraction. Just like the shooting phase is an abstraction. You dont need an actual railgun to play a broadsides shooting phase anymore than you need to have your tiny plastic men actually climb inside of your tiny plastic tank.
This rule is worded poorly, and even if it wasnt it does not pretain to the deployment phase because it specifically calls out movement as a requirement for the latter part of its text. If Green then you may red. During deployment Green is not possible so this is moot.
And this is precisely what we refer to as the interpretation of a rule, a.k.a. what you believe the RAI is. In YMDC, the primary goal is to help each other clarify what the RAW states, not how the said RAW is wrong because you believe your interpretation is right.
What you're discussing is a RAI against the RAW, which is clearly against the tenets of this forum. You are more than welcomed to suggest what your interpretation of RAI is, but you cannot claim that the RAW is wrong upon the basis of your idea of RAI.
RAW, it's plain and simple: units deployed embarked in a transport is told to be "removed from battlefield" which, upon disembarking is "set up on the battlefield." We are simply providing what the rule says literally without any bias.
It's not that we don't understand removing the models from the battlefield is an abstraction - it represents that the unit is inside the transport since we physically cannot put models in it. However, in order to govern the interactions that deal with the embarked units, they are considered to be off battlefield (i.e. explodes!). It's a certain in-game mechanics that needs to be established for the sake of consistency.
You cannot be considered having been deployed and set up on the battlefield for the sake of reserves calculation and then also reap the bonuses of being off the battlefield (i.e. when the transport explodes, you do not allocate the resulting wound to it). This is the precise 'pick-and-choose' situation where a unit can be considered both on and off the battlefield depending on the situation that consistency is required.
RAW, it's plain and simple: units deployed embarked in a transport is told to be "removed from battlefield" which, upon disembarking is "set up on the battlefield." We are simply providing what the rule says literally without any bias.
Show me where in the deployment section on transports it says that the models are removed? Because as far as I can tell that stipulation only happens in the embark clause, which does not apply anywhere that cannot have units end a move.
and again, RAW, starting the game deployed in a transport does not invoke the Embarking section of the transport rules. A model can be embarked without having had to make the Embark action.
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.
They are not separate, so they are together. You put one down, you are also putting the other down. It's another abstraction, but they are both down. They cant be together and at the same time in two places. Therefore they are both on the table for purposes of deployment and counting reserves
Once embarked, they count as being inside the transport, which is on the table; So they count as being there as well. If they hadn't there would be a mention of where they go in the rules for that unit like we have for the night scythe or for the monolith.
With all of that said, its worded poorly; and could be tightened up, but the intent is clear and the raw confirms my position if scrutinized.
The statement "starting the game does not invoke the Embarking section of the transport rules" is again, an inference derived from false conclusion.
"Embarking rule requires the unit to be within 3" and be removed from the battlefield. During deployment, a unit cannot possibly be 3" and removed from battlefield before being deployed. However, there's a explicit permission that allows you to deploy units inside a transport rather than setting up the unit on the battlefield. Therefore, the rules that allow you to embark units inside a transport at deployment must be a diffrent type of embarking than as described in the embarking rule. Thus, starting the game does not invoke the Embarking section of the transport rule."
The underlined portions are the inferred portions of your argument. These are not RAW. The rules does not make a distinction between the two "different types of act of embarking," because the RAW does not recognize different modes of embarking.
skchsan wrote: The statement "starting the game does not invoke the Embarking section of the transport rules" is again, an inference derived from false conclusion.
[snip]
The underlined portions are the inferred portions of your argument. These are not RAW. The rules does not make a distinction between the two "different types of act of embarking," because the RAW does not recognize different modes of embarking.
Quoting me and making the quote up so that you can underline bits of it is not only poor form, its strawman. I never said that there are two kinds of embarking. There is only one way to embark in the game of 40k and its outline in the transport section of the rules.
There is, however, a way to start the game embarked, and that's to deploy a transport with a unit inside it at the start of the game. Notice the word start? As in nothing before? As in no need to embark? They begin the game already embarked and are put down together as one drop during the deployment phase. Together is another important word here too, because it means they are not separated to different 'locales'.
When the time comes to count how many units are on the battlefield, the transport and the units that began the game embarked are in the same locale. That locale is the tabletop.
One transport with 9 units inside is 10 units on the table, and permits 10 units in reserve.
skchsan wrote: The statement "starting the game does not invoke the Embarking section of the transport rules" is again, an inference derived from false conclusion.
[snip]
The underlined portions are the inferred portions of your argument. These are not RAW. The rules does not make a distinction between the two "different types of act of embarking," because the RAW does not recognize different modes of embarking.
Quoting me and making the quote up so that you can underline bits of it is not only poor form, its strawman. I never said that there are two kinds of embarking. There is only one way to embark in the game of 40k and its outline in the transport section of the rules.
There is, however, a way to start the game embarked, and that's to deploy a transport with a unit inside it at the start of the game. Notice the word start? As in nothing before? As in no need to embark? They begin the game already embarked and are put down together as one drop during the deployment phase. Together is another important word here too, because it means they are not separated to different 'locales'.
When the time comes to count how many units are on the battlefield, the transport and the units that began the game embarked are in the same locale. That locale is the tabletop.
One transport with 9 units inside is 10 units on the table, and permits 10 units in reserve.
If something is already on the table, can you set it up on the table?
No, you cannot-it's already there, it has no need to set up.
Lets take it from the top. There are two pertinent information regarding embarking we can gather from the RAW:
Transport Capacity:...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].
Now, let us break down the above rule: according to the rule, there are two ways to embark units inside a transport.
units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately
If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it.
Ok, so we now know how we can have units embarked in a transport - but how do we represent the units that are [embarked inside the transport] in the game? We understand the act of embarking a transport means that the unit has entered the transport, but obviously it will be physically impossible for the most part to actually shove the models inside the transport. This is explained further down the line in the Transports rule:
Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now [embarked inside the transport].
So, we represent in game that a unit(s) are embarked on a transport by removing the unit from the battlefield and placing it to the side.
Now, it's important to note that the act of removing the models from the battlefield, or colloquially, placing them "off the battlefield", actually has no bearing on a unit's eligiblility to be embarked on a transport or not - we've already covered this and learned that you can either place them inside the transport before the game starts during deployment, or move all of the models in the unit within 3" of a transport. However, in order for a unit to claim to be 'embarked inside this transport', it actually cannot be placed alongside, on top, or bottom, physically shoved inside the transport as RAW. The unit must be 'removed from the battlefield' and placed to one side - in other words, the embarked unit cannot have a literal physical presence 'on the battlefield' when claiming to be inside a transport.
It doesn't matter whether the transport and the units embarked in it make up a single deployment choice and share the same 'locale'. In order to claim that the units are inside the transport, it must follow the rule for representing this act of embarking - it cannot have physical presence 'on the battlefield.'
Now, let's go back and read the introductory paragraph of the "Transports" rule:
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.
In this paragraph, it explains to us that each following paragraphs are meant to be read as a single entry. Each paragraph builds upon one another like a coherent essay.
I think your next step in trying to convince those with similar mindset as I is to present us with a case in which a unit/model can have no physical presence on the battlefield and yet still be considered to be on the battlefield. I think we can actually have a constructive discussion once you're able to provide us with such example.
Now, let's go back and read the introductory paragraph of the "Transports" rule:
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.
In this paragraph, it explains to us that each following paragraphs are meant to be read as a single entry.
It certainly does not explain that; Now you're trying to interject interpretation into the rules. That section lists the rules regarding transports, it in no way implies that all transports will have to meet all conditions listed on that section at all times. In fact there are plenty of transports that work around those rules.
I think your next step in trying to convince those with similar mindset as I is to present us with a case in which a unit/model can have no physical presence on the battlefield and yet still be considered to be on the battlefield. I think we can actually have a constructive discussion once you're able to provide us with such example.
I have provided such a case, being deployed inside of a transport is one such case. I even provided a quote from the designers' commentary that supports it; You chose to keep ignoring it.
Take a look at the end of the quote you provided. It says a unit can't both embark and disembark on the same turn. If the unit needed to embark during deployment then it would count as the same turn. It does not, because those things do not happen as part of the actual game, rather they are part of the setup. Units deploying into a transport do not invoke the rules for Embark, because they do not meet the condition for it. If Condition; Then rule. You cant on one hand argue that all of the rules listed on transport need to apply at all times, and then, on the other hand, tell me that its fine to ignore the Clause at the start of the section that requires the models in question to end a movement phase.
Either this works the way I am telling you it works, or no models are allowed to be deployed in a transport ever because they 'need to invoke embark' to deploy in it, and cannot satisfy the clause requiring a movement phase.
It's actually a case of reading comprehension, whose certain competency is required in order to score successfully in standardized tests if you've actually grown up in the states. It is not an interjection of interpretations, but an inference gathered from the context at hand.
Don't remember the exact order, but I think you check to see if the vehicle explodes first, then deal that damage.
After that you check for embarked casualties and then place your disembarking models before picking up the wrecked vehicle.
This is correct.
You check to see if the vehicle explodes, if it does, you measure to the units in range. The embarked unit can not be measured to at this point because it is not on the battlefield yet. So they only suffer the other effects.
So... Are units in embarked in a transport on the battlefield or not? It seems like you've already said otherwise in agreement that embarked units are not on battlefield...
So, if a unit starts the game embarked on a transport, it is on the battlefield, but after the deployment, the embarked units are not on the battlefield?
Frankly, do you even recall what it is that you're arguing about/for? As a reminder, this is a thread about whether units that start the game embarked on a transport counting towards having models on the battlefield.
The embarked unit is still in the transport and as such can not be measured to yet...
No contradiction at all. they are in the same locale as the transport and you can not measure to them since they are embarked...
Actually, yes you have used the embark rules. "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked instead of being set up separately - declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up." Otherwise, you couldn't start the game embarked in the transport. You still have the condition of them being embarked in the transport, which they have defined as the unit being off the battlefield and set to the side.
No you do not. as they did not end their movement within 3 inches...
So you dont' shoot assault weapons after advancing?
But sorry. Impossible. Too much stuff out there where rules don't even say how to solve it. Game literally stops as there's no way to continue. So you are lying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: Wanting a properly written ruleset does not make me pedantic. If WotC can manage it (for all MTGs faults it's rules are written properly), so can GW.
You claim RAW is RAI. Then you are claiming GW designers are uber human non-fallable creatures who always write perfectly...Despite that's being impossible. Even if you believe in god then even god fails at that.
And ignore evidence of all the GW's "oops we didnt' mean that" FAQ's. GW doesn't pretend RAW is RAI. Only one pretending that is you. While playing game non-RAW.
But that's a basic rule of English. To be sitting you have to sit. If you stand you are standing. It is the action of entering a state. If you must remove models in the act of embarking, and the act of embarking never brings those models back then the models are removed when they are embarked.
If someone throws you on your ass in a match of judo have you sat down?
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.
It says that; they are inside. Are you trying to imply that the game breaks unless I saw my transports open and shove the models inside of them?
Taking models off the table is an abstraction. Just like the shooting phase is an abstraction. You dont need an actual railgun to play a broadsides shooting phase anymore than you need to have your tiny plastic men actually climb inside of your tiny plastic tank.
Nice move, misrepresenting what the rules say. It doesn't say remove the models, it says remove the unit from the battlefield. That means the unit (not just the models) are off the battlefield, and that has rules implications - it's not just an abstraction as you are trying to claim.
Edit: Asking from a PURELY RAW STANDPOINT. Not How You Would Play It, just what the rules actually say.
phyiscally in the material universe, they are wherever you decide to put them. For purposes of the game, they are inside that transport; with restrictions that disalow them from affecting of being affected by the game unless some rule permits it.
So are they on the battlefield? Because, if they ARE on the battlefield, they CANNOT disembark. You can't set up on the battlefield if you're already there.
Where do you see that rule?
Look at the rules for deployment. They tell you when you deploy you set up on the table - on the battlefield. If you're already set up, you can't set up again without being off the table first. The rules don't say disembarking is redeploying. If the rules (for disembarking or something else) tell you that you set up on the battlefield when you are claiming that you are already on the battlefield without being removed for some reason first, then your interpretation is faulty. In this case, the faulty interpretation is willfully ignoring that the transport rules tell you the unit is off the table when embarked. And, these rules also apply to units that start the game embarked since it's the transport rules that say you can start the game embarked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
davou wrote: Do you need a section in the rulebook that lists which words from the English language are and aren't allowed to describe the game as well?.
Apparently you do, since you think it's perfectly acceptable to set up on the board when the unit is already set up on the board. Maybe GW needs a 300 page book defining all their terms.
davou wrote: As far as the game is concerned, those models are in your transport.
Disembarking makes no requirement that they be off the battlefield, only that the be 'embarked'.
Which the game has defined the condition of embarked units as being off the table. They also never state that you can set up on the table if you're already set up on the table (which is how they are if they are being treated as on the table and deployed if in the transport).
davou wrote: Starting the game with units embarked does not invoke the rules for embarking, because those apply to the movement phase and there is no movement phase during deployment.
Yet you must reference the rules for embarking to know what it means to be embarked. Part of it is that the unit is off the table while embarked.
skchsan wrote: The statement "starting the game does not invoke the Embarking section of the transport rules" is again, an inference derived from false conclusion.
[snip]
The underlined portions are the inferred portions of your argument. These are not RAW. The rules does not make a distinction between the two "different types of act of embarking," because the RAW does not recognize different modes of embarking.
Quoting me and making the quote up so that you can underline bits of it is not only poor form, its strawman. I never said that there are two kinds of embarking. There is only one way to embark in the game of 40k and its outline in the transport section of the rules.
Actually, you are saying that when you say the rules for embarking don't apply when you start the game embarked. Units that embark in a vehicle are off the table. You say they are on the table if they start in the transport, so obviously you are claiming some other method of embarking where not being off the table applies. But, since you say there's only one method of embarking, then obviously those rules apply, and the units are off the battlefield since you would then have to treat any unit as following the normal embarking rules before the game, which would include having the unit off the battlefield. They do not suddenly become on the battlefield while embarked until they disembark, at which point they set up on the table.
I think the clearest rebuttal to the RAW = RAI arguement is the Adeptus Mechanicus Scryerskull stratgem:
"Use this strategem at any time to do one of the following: reveal d3 hidden set-up markers (if your opponent is using concealed deployment), identify a mysterious objective anywhere on the battlefield, or shoot with an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army without the penalties to hit roles from the Dawn Raid, Low Visibility, or Cover of Darkness rules."
If you took that RAW you could pay 1 CP every single phase to fire your 108 phosphor blaster shots from your unit of 6 Castellan Robots.
No one in thier right mind would say that was as intended, because it would be bonkers broken. In fact no one even tries to get away with it because it is so obviously not intended, even if as written it would be permitted.
I'm having a really hard time understanding who is supporting what side in this debate. What are the different camps here pertaining to the original question?
Is the argument a unit and its transport count as 1 or 2 toward the total # of units for the 50% reserve roll?
Everyone seems to be quoting the same rules for their side.
deviantduck wrote: I'm having a really hard time understanding who is supporting what side in this debate. What are the different camps here pertaining to the original question?
Is the argument a unit and its transport count as 1 or 2 toward the total # of units for the 50% reserve roll?
Everyone seems to be quoting the same rules for their side.
Camp 1: embarked models do not count as being placed on the battlefield for the purpose of tactical reserves calculations or for any other purposes because as per RAW, embarked models must be represented by being removed/placed off the battlefield
Camp 2: embarked models count as being placed on the battlefield for all purposes because removing the models from the battlefield is a representational abstraction for being inside the transport and not literally being off the battlefield.
Camp 3: if you deploy units embarked in a transport it counts as being on the battlefield because as per RAW, it follows rules in "transport capacity" and not "embark" because models cannot be within 3" before being deployed.
Camp 1: embarked models do not count as being placed on the battlefield for the purpose of tactical reserves calculations or for any other purposes because as per RAW, embarked models must be represented by being removed/placed off the battlefield
Camp 2: embarked models count as being placed on the battlefield for all purposes because removing the models from the battlefield is a representational abstraction for being inside the transport and not literally being off the battlefield.
Camp 3: if you deploy units embarked in a transport it counts as being on the battlefield because as per RAW, it follows rules in "transport capacity" and not "embark" because models cannot be within 3" before being deployed.
deviantduck wrote: I'm having a really hard time understanding who is supporting what side in this debate. What are the different camps here pertaining to the original question?
Is the argument a unit and its transport count as 1 or 2 toward the total # of units for the 50% reserve roll?
Everyone seems to be quoting the same rules for their side.
Camp 1: embarked models do not count as being placed on the battlefield for the purpose of tactical reserves calculations or for any other purposes because as per RAW, embarked models must be represented by being removed/placed off the battlefield
Camp 2: embarked models count as being placed on the battlefield for all purposes because removing the models from the battlefield is a representational abstraction for being inside the transport and not literally being off the battlefield.
Camp 3: if you deploy units embarked in a transport it counts as being on the battlefield because as per RAW, it follows rules in "transport capacity" and not "embark" because models cannot be within 3" before being deployed.
Thanks! That is very succinct and also looks like a great poll with which to start a new thread. I'm in camp 1 because the designers notes say they don't count as separate deployments for other rules.
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, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your rmy’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
New faq confirms what I was saying; you include units in transports as 'on the battlefield'
I'm not too sure. Your emphasized part may be referring to the transports themselves and not the units embarked in them. Don't forget that Drop Pods are vehicles that don't have to start on the board so it could be a way of catagorizing them.
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, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your rmy’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
New faq confirms what I was saying; you include units in transports as 'on the battlefield'
Yesssss. The logical is finally the RAW. Nice fix, GW.
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, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your rmy’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
New faq confirms what I was saying; you include units in transports as 'on the battlefield'
No, it confirms the camp 2 if anything.
Your camp 3 stance was farfetched, willful misinterpretation of the RAW.
Thank god GW finally looked at this issue. It only took them a full year.
So I guess stormravens flying around with a unit of scouts is a thing now again, huh?
set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield)
New faq confirms what I was saying; you include units in transports as 'on the battlefield'
No, it confirms the camp 2 if anything.
Your camp 3 stance was farfetched, willful misinterpretation of the RAW.
Position three only existed because position 1 was a pedantic overreaching attempted to ignore what was obviously the intent of the writers.
I had said as much a week ago
davou wrote: The rule is really poorly written, and can be argued to work both ways with varying degree's of efficiency, but the intent is very clear. My point has only been this so far; If getting toxically pedantic is required to understand how the rule works, then it can be done both ways.
On a second reading, I don't think they clarified the issue as well as they could have... It definitely could've been better written to finally put the boot down on the ground but at a closer look, the FAQ only gives you another check on the reserves based on the power level.
...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, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level...
So now you have to fulfill two criteria:
1. at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield
2. the sum of power levels of the units set up in the battlefield and units embarked must be at least half your army's total power level.
It actually doesn't address the main issue of "are embarked units off the battlefield or on the battlefield"...
Now the question is "counting the PL of embarked units" = "counting them to be on the battlefield" ?
BaconCatBug wrote: Actually, most people play by the rules. You're free to make up whatever you want in your own group however. I've yet to have a game where people didn't want to play by the rules.
Funny how this sometimes needs to be spelled out.
It makes for good practice when people decide to be "unreasonable" and not see rules the way you would like them to be.
It prepares us in life when we deal with "difficult people", insurance companies, banks and police officers, but this is all play and should not be that serious. But my job is mainly enforcing rules as written, so maybe I am more of a rules-lawyer than most and do not have a more casual perspective.
I just like to know we are playing to the same rules, not have some assumption being made at a pivotal point in the game and someone gets all bent out of shape emotionally (me or my opponent).
Drama in gaming really is unnecessary except when succeeding in a highly improbable task... then it is just epic.
skchsan wrote: On a second reading, I don't think they clarified the issue as well as they could have... It definitely could've been better written to finally put the boot down on the ground but at a closer look, the FAQ only gives you another check on the reserves based on the power level.
...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, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level...
So now you have to fulfill two criteria:
1. at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield
2. the sum of power levels of the units set up in the battlefield and units embarked must be at least half your army's total power level.
It actually doesn't address the main issue of "are embarked units off the battlefield or on the battlefield"...
Now the question is "counting the PL of embarked units" = "counting them to be on the battlefield" ?
You can't seriously be trying this hard to ignore the part in red there. Including means that they are to be included amongst any counting done for units that are on the battlefield. They count as on the battlefield.
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
The first part of this faq tells you to count what you have on the battlefield, and the part in red tells you that things in transports also count.
skchsan wrote: On a second reading, I don't think they clarified the issue as well as they could have... It definitely could've been better written to finally put the boot down on the ground but at a closer look, the FAQ only gives you another check on the reserves based on the power level.
...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, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level...
So now you have to fulfill two criteria:
1. at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield
2. the sum of power levels of the units set up in the battlefield and units embarked must be at least half your army's total power level.
It actually doesn't address the main issue of "are embarked units off the battlefield or on the battlefield"...
Now the question is "counting the PL of embarked units" = "counting them to be on the battlefield" ?
You can't seriously be trying this hard to ignore the part in red there. Including means that they are to be included amongst any counting done for units that are on the battlefield. They count as on the battlefield.
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
The first part of this faq tells you to count what you have on the battlefield, and the part in red tells you that things in transports also count.
They've certainly stepped in the right direction in addressing this issue, but the counting of embarked units at deployment only pertains to when summing the PL of the units during deployment. There's still the specific ambiguity that caused this discussion in the first place unaddressed.
You are now assuming "the RAW tells us to count the PL's of the units embarked. this must mean that they are considered to be on the battlefield." I'd like to agree with this but I'm having hard time reading the RAW as that.
Ok, let me reiterate the point I'm trying to get across - as per the FAQ, it seems to point at units in transport count as being on the battlefield for the purpose of TacRes calculations. But what about other interactions regarding being embarked and being on the battlefield?
The FAQ doesn't fully address the issue of the on-off status of the units embarked for all other purposes of the game - I hate to use this phrase but this is a "snowflake" to the TacRes issue only.
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, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your rmy’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
New faq confirms what I was saying; you include units in transports as 'on the battlefield'
Yesssss. The logical is finally the RAW. Nice fix, GW.
That part's nice, even though they've found a way to sneak in having to check the power levels of what's on the board and what isn't as well as the number of units now. I guess people weren't using power levels enough.
set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield)
I can see where you might be confused still... /s
That lines tells you to count those that are on the battlefield as well as the units that are embarked. So, we know to count them towards the PL calculations for TacRes, but we still don't know if they are considered to be on the battlefield. In other words, the rules still doesn't clarify the core issue at hand - is counting the PL of the embarked units same thing as considering them to be on the battlefield? This is important for other rules interactions such as sudden death rule.
If the units embarked count towards having models on the battlefield, then the FAQ for sudden death has no meaning since you can just buy cheap tax-units to embark on transport-gunships and fly around all day with 0 consequences to sudden death rule.
set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield)
I can see where you might be confused still... /s
That lines tells you to count those that are on the battlefield as well as the units that are embarked. So, we know to count them towards the PL calculations for TacRes, but we still don't know if they are considered to be on the battlefield. In other words, the rules still doesn't clarify the core issue at hand - is counting the PL of the embarked units same thing as considering them to be on the battlefield? This is important for other rules interactions such as sudden death rule.
If the units embarked count towards having models on the battlefield, then the FAQ for sudden death has no meaning since you can just buy cheap tax-units to embark on transport-gunships and fly around all day with 0 consequences to sudden death rule.
The 40K Rulebook FAQ has been updated. Units embarked in transports that are deployed 'on the battlefield' count for being on the battlefield. Units embarked in transports held in reserve count as 'in reserve' themselves.
set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield)
I can see where you might be confused still... /s
That lines tells you to count those that are on the battlefield as well as the units that are embarked. So, we know to count them towards the PL calculations for TacRes, but we still don't know if they are considered to be on the battlefield. In other words, the rules still doesn't clarify the core issue at hand - is counting the PL of the embarked units same thing as considering them to be on the battlefield? This is important for other rules interactions such as sudden death rule.
If the units embarked count towards having models on the battlefield, then the FAQ for sudden death has no meaning since you can just buy cheap tax-units to embark on transport-gunships and fly around all day with 0 consequences to sudden death rule.
The 40K Rulebook FAQ has been updated. Units embarked in transports that are deployed 'on the battlefield' count for being on the battlefield. Units embarked in transports held in reserve count as 'in reserve' themselves.
AnFéasógMór wrote: Hooray, now the FAQ has confirmed what pretty much everyone but BCB has always known: that units in transports are on the battlefield.
It's not an FAQ, it's an errata. So I was 100% right, as usual.
AnFéasógMór wrote: Hooray, now the FAQ has confirmed what pretty much everyone but BCB has always known: that units in transports are on the battlefield.
It's not an FAQ, it's an errata. So I was 100% right, as usual.
#picture of Tom Hardy pointing up saying thats bait#
AnFéasógMór wrote: Hooray, now the FAQ has confirmed what pretty much everyone but BCB has always known: that units in transports are on the battlefield.
It's not an FAQ, it's an errata. So I was 100% right, as usual.
No you were not. The RAW disagreed with your argument, but somehow you still think your argument held water.
P.S. it was not errata, just an FAQ that did not change any rules.
AnFéasógMór wrote: Hooray, now the FAQ has confirmed what pretty much everyone but BCB has always known: that units in transports are on the battlefield.
It's not an FAQ, it's an errata. So I was 100% right, as usual.
No you were not. The RAW disagreed with your argument, but somehow you still think your argument held water.
P.S. it was not errata, just an FAQ that did not change any rules.
Hahahaha he’s lit the “i was always 100% right” dumpster fire. Great. I’m wrong in hindsight in a bunch of cases where the FAQ has changed or clarified but don’t care, as fewer arguments means better games. Just happy we have clarity on those issues, and my ego isn’t an issue - I’m always happy to be wrong. I certainly won’t spend half a page saying “no, no the document has the wrong name so I’m still right”.
AnFéasógMór wrote: Hooray, now the FAQ has confirmed what pretty much everyone but BCB has always known: that units in transports are on the battlefield.
It's not an FAQ, it's an errata. So I was 100% right, as usual.
No you were not. The RAW disagreed with your argument, but somehow you still think your argument held water.
P.S. it was not errata, just an FAQ that did not change any rules.
To be more complete with tyour answer,it was not errata it was a FAQ that included this in a section of new Beta Rules where they were changing things.
They might have meant it to be this way always, but their talk about embarked units being off the table does a lot to make it harder to say they were on the table before this. It makes sense for them to be considered there at the battle for purposes of figuring out what you can put in reserves; it's nice to have this clarified.
He's right. Technically deployed units never have to embark, they just start that way. Rules inside of the embark mechanic dont apply.
