Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I know: however Primarch seems to believe that the unit inside the transport somehow dictates what the transport can do, namely if they don't have access to Outflank they cannot outlfank tin the vehicle.

This leads to the logical conclusion that, if a unit affects what a transport can do it must do so in a consistent manner - and as the unit does not have permission to move over 6" (as it is infantry) then the vehicle cannot do so either.

This is, of course, rediculous, and shows how flawed Primarchs argument is. Unfortunately I don't see Primarch actually getting this, so we will have 3 mroe pages of "you can't Outflank Vets in a Vendetta!!!" despite having no actual rules to back them up.

You can outflank vets in a vendetta as the Vehicle has permission to do so, and nothing ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THE RULES states that an embarked unit puts constraints on what a vehicle may do. In fact the rules are written the other way round - the embarked unit is constrained by the vehicles actions.

Thats funny, you accuse me of doing something, but, you are just as, if not more guilty.


Please read the rules for Outflanking, where it tells you EXACTLY who can outflank. Where does it say that a Transport can ignore this rule and bring along whoever he likes? It does say that Units that have this ability can convey it onto DEDICATED Transports that they come with.

Again, I am quoting rules, unless you think that GW rules are restrictive and not Permissive? In which case, I can think of a lot of things the rules dont say I CANT do, which would change a lot of interps and the way the game is played.

I am posting rules, namely the one about what can Outflank. What have you posted? Nothing? Yeah.....



Clay

I think the transport rules are better suited for the issue.

They state that the embarked unit is removed from the table.

There is no reason to follow the contraints of a unit that is not on the table.

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:I think the transport rules are better suited for the issue.

They state that the embarked unit is removed from the table.

There is no reason to follow the contraints of a unit that is not on the table.

/shrug

Oh really. Then how do you explain that thing about measuring ranges to and from embarked units from the vehicles hull. If they are removed from the table I cannot cast psychic powers, powers cannot be shut down etc.

Curious issue. The outflank rules state that units with the outflank ability confer that on a dedicated transport, but then when they outflank they must be embarked on that transport.

The scout rules, one of the rules that allows outflanking, says that a scout unit confers that ability on their transport, whereas the infiltrate rule states that units lose the ability to infiltrate if they are in a vehicle.

The vendettas have the scout rule and so can outflank and grant that ability to any passengers. What's the argument against it?

Primarch wrote:Thats funny, you accuse me of doing something, but, you are just as, if not more guilty.

Please read the rules for Outflanking, where it tells you EXACTLY who can outflank. Where does it say that a Transport can ignore this rule and bring along whoever he likes? It does say that Units that have this ability can convey it onto DEDICATED Transports that they come with.

Again, I am quoting rules, unless you think that GW rules are restrictive and not Permissive? In which case, I can think of a lot of things the rules dont say I CANT do, which would change a lot of interps and the way the game is played.

I am posting rules, namely the one about what can Outflank. What have you posted? Nothing? Yeah.....

Clay

Stop putting words in my mouth - as you know VERY well from my other posts i am fully cogniscent of it being permissive. Something you don't seem to actually fully understand yourself however.

Yes, the rules for Outflanking tells you the vehicle with Scout can Outflank - so you can do so. Permission granted. Case Closed.

This is permission granted in exactly the same way that the vehicle rules tell you you can travel at speeds over 12", something infantry cannot do and do not have explicit permission to do while embarked - yet you seem to not see the problem there. So you have PERMISSION TO OUTFLANK - and the transport rules give you permission to move while a unit is embarked. So you now need to find something that removes this permission. You have provided.....nothing. Again. Even ducking the direct, simple question I asked to post the same, vapid argument again.

Can you answer the question I posted? It was very simple: Do vehicles have to follow the movment restrictions of those units embarked on the vehicle? This is EXACTLY the line of argument you are using, so I would be interested in your response. If you care to make one this time?

Arachbombe - there isn't a problem for anyone but Primarch, who seems to be looking for explicit permission for every action and combination thereof, while missing the seeringly obvious general permission given to perform the action. This has been "debated" previously to no avail - thankfully I will never playh against such a person willingly excpet at a tournament, when they would be laughed out for even suggesting such a preposterous hypothesis.

Eidolon wrote:Oh really. Then how do you explain that thing about measuring ranges to and from embarked units from the vehicles hull. If they are removed from the table I cannot cast psychic powers, powers cannot be shut down etc.

I do not explain it. I use the rules in the book governing the exceptions you mention.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Primarch wrote:Thats funny, you accuse me of doing something, but, you are just as, if not more guilty.

Please read the rules for Outflanking, where it tells you EXACTLY who can outflank. Where does it say that a Transport can ignore this rule and bring along whoever he likes? It does say that Units that have this ability can convey it onto DEDICATED Transports that they come with.

Again, I am quoting rules, unless you think that GW rules are restrictive and not Permissive? In which case, I can think of a lot of things the rules dont say I CANT do, which would change a lot of interps and the way the game is played.

I am posting rules, namely the one about what can Outflank. What have you posted? Nothing? Yeah.....

Clay

Stop putting words in my mouth - as you know VERY well from my other posts i am fully cogniscent of it being permissive. Something you don't seem to actually fully understand yourself however.

Yes, the rules for Outflanking tells you the vehicle with Scout can Outflank - so you can do so. Permission granted. Case Closed.

This is permission granted in exactly the same way that the vehicle rules tell you you can travel at speeds over 12", something infantry cannot do and do not have explicit permission to do while embarked - yet you seem to not see the problem there. So you have PERMISSION TO OUTFLANK - and the transport rules give you permission to move while a unit is embarked. So you now need to find something that removes this permission. You have provided.....nothing. Again. Even ducking the direct, simple question I asked to post the same, vapid argument again.

Can you answer the question I posted? It was very simple: Do vehicles have to follow the movment restrictions of those units embarked on the vehicle? This is EXACTLY the line of argument you are using, so I would be interested in your response. If you care to make one this time?

Arachbombe - there isn't a problem for anyone but Primarch, who seems to be looking for explicit permission for every action and combination thereof, while missing the seeringly obvious general permission given to perform the action. This has been "debated" previously to no avail - thankfully I will never playh against such a person willingly excpet at a tournament, when they would be laughed out for even suggesting such a preposterous hypothesis.

Obviously you can do nothing but attack me, so i will let it go. There is merit to the argument, you just choose not to see it.

No, vehicles do not have to follow the movement restrictions for the unit embarked on it. Unless you are talking about shooting, or disembarking, then all of a sudden, they DO. So you can now see that there are times when you must follow the unit's rules, and times when you must follow the vehicle rules. Not a great example, but you did ask, so the answer is yes, and no.


Clay

Sorry, you're completely wrong on that - the movement speed of the vehicle affects the unit inside it - i.e. if you move over 6" you cannot fire. Nothing, NOTHING, about the unit being inside the vehicle has any bearing on what the vehicle can or cannot do - excpet where it is explicitly overridden.

If you disagree can you find an example of the reverse? Where the unit places restrictions on the vehicle? Specifically movement and shooting here. You will note that Flat Out is still the vehicle restricting a units options (may not embark / disembark) and a unit giving a ded transport Outflank is a specific exception where the embarked unit DOES affect the vehicle - *all* the rules are written this way: what the vehicle does / does not do affects the unit inside. Nowhere does what the unit may do affect the vehicle unless it is explicitly mentioned.

If you can't do so, then perhaps you will now agree that the status of the unit inside makes no difference to the transporting vehicle? The capabilties of the transported unit (i.e. that it cannot move over 6" as it is Infantry) have NO bearing on the transport itself being able to move over 6". Same as the unit inside being able to Outflank is irrelevant as long as the vehicle can.

You still cannot refute that you have been given permission to Outflank the vehicle and that nothing in the transport rule removes that permission. There is only merit in your argument if you ignore this general permission, which it is clear you are choosing to do and for no logical reason.

Finally: I am attacking your argument despite having you explicitly attacked me by saying I had presented "nothing" and pretending I have said things I have not. I would suggest not throwing accusations around you cannot back up.

Well Primarch also clearly believes that a vendetta with troops inside it cannot make a scout move before the game too then right? Since the troops don't have scout

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry, you're completely wrong on that - the movement speed of the vehicle affects the unit inside it - i.e. if you move over 6" you cannot fire. Nothing, NOTHING, about the unit being inside the vehicle has any bearing on what the vehicle can or cannot do - excpet where it is explicitly overridden.

If you disagree can you find an example of the reverse? Where the unit places restrictions on the vehicle? Specifically movement and shooting here. You will note that Flat Out is still the vehicle restricting a units options (may not embark / disembark) and a unit giving a ded transport Outflank is a specific exception where the embarked unit DOES affect the vehicle - *all* the rules are written this way: what the vehicle does / does not do affects the unit inside. Nowhere does what the unit may do affect the vehicle unless it is explicitly mentioned.

If you can't do so, then perhaps you will now agree that the status of the unit inside makes no difference to the transporting vehicle? The capabilties of the transported unit (i.e. that it cannot move over 6" as it is Infantry) have NO bearing on the transport itself being able to move over 6". Same as the unit inside being able to Outflank is irrelevant as long as the vehicle can.

You still cannot refute that you have been given permission to Outflank the vehicle and that nothing in the transport rule removes that permission. There is only merit in your argument if you ignore this general permission, which it is clear you are choosing to do and for no logical reason.

Finally: I am attacking your argument despite having you explicitly attacked me by saying I had presented "nothing" and pretending I have said things I have not. I would suggest not throwing accusations around you cannot back up.

I think you need to re-read all your posts my friend. You said I had presented nothing long before I did. Guess its only an attack when the other person does it to you? Its obvious this is getting nowhere and also obvious that the decision was made long ago, and no matter what I say now, nothing will change that. Not sure why I continue to argue with someone who doesn't matter in the scheme of things.

For the record, I believe its pretty clear that the Vendetta can't carry Vets and outflank, you disagree, fine. You can't prove your point any more than i can. Neither of us is seeing the other's point, and to be honest, I have better things to do with my time. It is what it is, according the INAT the rules state that a Vendetta can carry Vets and Outflank. If I choose to participate in tournaments that use that FAQ, then I will have to abide the rulings. Pretty simple.

No more responses from me in this thread as they are a waste of both our time.


Clay

emoragequit time then I guess.

The Vendetta can Outflank as it has Scout. You cannot show that this permission is removed, meaning your argument fails. It is that simple. Until you can argue that point your argument holds no weight.

I have tried to see your argument, as is obvious from the specific issues I have raised with it. You however have shown nothing similar about my arguments, as you have yet to respond in any meaningful way.

You will find that any tournament you attend you will be laughed out for that "interpretation", as it requires you to ignore entire parts of the ruleset. Good luck trying it though!

Edit: actually I posted that you had brought no written or relevant rules to the debate, and indeed you have not - you have failed to show any rules that remove the permission for a transport to use Outflank when containing a unit which does not have Outflank. On ther other hand I have provided rules. Yours is an attack on me, mine is an attack on your argument. You're still struggling I see....

yakface wrote:

olympia wrote:

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

I agree with thebetter1.

p.86 Organising a Battle
1. Agree points limits and choose forces.
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. Deploy Forces
5. Start the Game!

So when it says "the start of the game" for Cluster Mines it would be reasonable to conclude that refers to step 5.

You are correct that would be a reasonable conclusion just as our ruling is a reasonable conclusion as well, IMHO. But going with your interpretation would mean that the mines get placed AFTER everybody is deployed which, makes them much, much more powerful, and doesn't match the intention of the rule or the fluff IMO. I think it is far better to stick with the more strict interpretation in a situation like that (where you have two different reasonable conclusions).

Is your conclusion reasonable now? It completely ignores the part about placing them at the start of the game, while my interpretation does not ignore the part about placing them after terrain is set up.

Your interpretation is not supported by intent or fluff any more than mine is. Are you saying that it is completely unreasonable that a unit of trained infiltrators can place traps under the enemy's nose? Or are you saying that the only time a unit would ever place traps would be before it is known that the enemy is even going to enter that general area?


As for the Vendettas, I have to say that they can outflank with a unit. They do have permission to outflank, given in the outflank rules. They do not have a specific restriction that they cannot outflank when a unit is embarked. Therefore, they can. You might as well argue that a unit with an independent character joined to it is not allowed to run. Where in the rulebook does it say that they can? It doesn't, yet they can anyway (and even if it turns out that there is some reference in some obscure place, I can think of a bunch of other examples like this). Funny how that works out.

thebetter1 wrote:Is your conclusion reasonable now? It completely ignores the part about placing them at the start of the game, while my interpretation does not ignore the part about placing them after terrain is set up.

I disagree.

The INAT interpretation assumes that when they say 'at the start of the game' they mean 'during the initial steps leading up to the game beginning' and 'after placing terrain' means 'immediately after placing terrain'... whereas your interpretation just leaves the question as to why they mention placing terrain at all.

If they meant that the mines should be placed immediately before the game begins, why would they have said 'after placing terrain' rather than 'after both players have deployed their forces'?

The fact that they specifically mention the deployment of the mines as being after an earlier step in the set-up process suggests that they meant for the mines to be deployed after that step.

insaniak wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Is your conclusion reasonable now? It completely ignores the part about placing them at the start of the game, while my interpretation does not ignore the part about placing them after terrain is set up.

I disagree.

The INAT interpretation assumes that when they say 'at the start of the game' they mean 'during the initial steps leading up to the game beginning' and 'after placing terrain' means 'immediately after placing terrain'... whereas your interpretation just leaves the question as to why they mention placing terrain at all.

If they meant that the mines should be placed immediately before the game begins, why would they have said 'after placing terrain' rather than 'after both players have deployed their forces'?

The fact that they specifically mention the deployment of the mines as being after an earlier step in the set-up process suggests that they meant for the mines to be deployed after that step.

The rulebook clearly defines the start of the game as occurring after both armies have deployed. You can't just change this definition to match the current INAT ruling. My interpretation has a problem with the reason GW put in a useless phrase, while yours has a problem with blatantly changing a rule that worked just fine on its own.

thebetter1 wrote:The rulebook clearly defines the start of the game as occurring after both armies have deployed.

It doesn't define it. It lists it as a step. You can as easily say that the entire list of events up to actually starting the game is the 'start of the game'... it's all stuff that happens in order for you to start playing.

And that interpretation removes the problem of the 'after setting up terrain' clause. Because instead of being a redundant piece of wording, it's a clarification as to exactly when at the 'start of the game' you place the mines.

TB1, you're up against some pretty hefty mod-based opinions here...

I personally agree with yak and insaniak's ruling on cluster mines.

Its important to remember that mine or anyone else's opinions are all equally valid!

yakface wrote:
Its important to remember that mine or anyone else's opinions are all equally valid!

Which raises the question of why the ruling is marked as RAW rather than a clarification.

Probably because in the opinion of those who created the INAT document, it is RAW. Others may, of course, have a different opinion.

insaniak wrote:Probably because in the opinion of those who created the INAT document, it is RAW. Others may, of course, have a different opinion.

Which shows that the INAT is an opinionated document. In a debate with multiple sides, both of which appear to be correct, they pick one and call it the RAW solution, when they have another category to show a ruling that had problems with RAW (such as two valid solutions). They could try to fix it and list it as a clarification.

thebetter1 wrote:Which shows that the INAT is an opinionated document.

Of course it is. Since none of the people working on it are from the GW studio, the best it can ever be is the opinions of those who wrote it. I'm not sure why you would expect it to be anything else.

In a debate with multiple sides, both of which appear to be correct, they pick one and call it the RAW solution, when they have another category to show a ruling that had problems with RAW (such as two valid solutions).

I'm not a member of the INAT team, so not privvy to the thinking behind any given ruling. But if they've called their solution RAW, I can only assume that it's because they feel it is RAW.

You feel that your interpretation is equally valid... and that's an opinion that you're perfectly entitled to. But given that I've already pointed out why (in my opinion) your interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense, I can certainly understand if the INAT crew considered it and discarded it.

Then again, it's also possible that they hadn't considered it. That's pretty much the purpose of this thread: to discuss rulings that people don't agree with and offer their reasoning as to why. It's entirely possible that on some issues there were arguments that they either overlooked or didn't think of.

I know that I'm a pretty new Dakkite and I know the Deffrolla issue was beaten to death but... with Melta being king of 5th ed. and the strongest ork shooting attack being 8 (and the most powerful cc attack usally 9 with one IC at str 10) and a lot of people running mech lists, what was your thoughts behind your ruling that it dont affect vehicles?

It should be noted that GW used the Inat FAQ for the 'Ard Boys finals.

Throw your internet geek rage aside and acknowledge the fact with all the rules, pages of documents, and different interpretations, this set of FAQ's is better than anything you will come up with on your own.

If you house rule items you don't wish to follow, keep them in your house. If you care to play on the circuit, know you will be subject to these rulings.

Starting a new "Avatar" on a random (though awesome) internet chat board because you disagree with 1 or 2 things out of a 80+ page document . . .

And PLEASE - stop posting questions in this thread. As I re-call the OP stated just to list items.

It has been suggested MANY times that if you personally have an objection to how a situation/rule is played, put it up for vote and see how the rest of the 40k community on this board plays it.

thebetter1 wrote:

insaniak wrote:Probably because in the opinion of those who created the INAT document, it is RAW. Others may, of course, have a different opinion.

Which shows that the INAT is an opinionated document. In a debate with multiple sides, both of which appear to be correct, they pick one and call it the RAW solution, when they have another category to show a ruling that had problems with RAW (such as two valid solutions). They could try to fix it and list it as a clarification.

You're absolutely correct. At the time it was written it seemed like the RAW to me. But having read your arguments I can absolutely see your perspective and I have no problems at all changing it to a clarification.

But, of course the INAT is opinionated/biased or whatever else you want to say. We are people with all the foibles of people and I don't know how you'd make something like this without opinion or bias not having some say in the matter. But I did my best to explain the goal and bias of the document right on the very first page so everyone knows where we're coming from when we created it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimgob wrote:I know that I'm a pretty new Dakkite and I know the Deffrolla issue was beaten to death but... with Melta being king of 5th ed. and the strongest ork shooting attack being 8 (and the most powerful cc attack usally 9 with one IC at str 10) and a lot of people running mech lists, what was your thoughts behind your ruling that it dont affect vehicles?

Our first release of the INAT that addressed the issue ruled that the Deffrolla could be used against vehicles.

However, after speaking with both the folks writing the UKGT house rules and the GW US customer service we were assured by both of them that they had received word from 'down the pipe' that GW's official policy on the matter was likely to be that Deffrollas did not work during rams.

In an effort to try to keep the 'big issue' rulings similar between the UKGT house rules and the INAT FAQ we decided to switch the ruling to match theirs (which is how it stands today).


Personally, I still feel like the rules seem to indicate that the Deffrolla DOES work during rams, but I certainly can understand the argument as to why it shouldn't.

Of course, knowing how things usually go I'm sure GW will someday add this ruling to their official FAQ and say that Deffrollas DO work during rams...

I would like to hopefully get back to listing items on here. Then maybe we can bring up the rules that have the most opposition to them and bring them to light in here to re-discuss them. (maybe yakface would be cool enough to start polls for them once we get a good list since he gets a good draw on his )

There is an issue here that has not been a poll already?

---ignore---

kirsanth wrote:There is an issue here that has not been a poll already?

Pretty much everything raised so far has been hashed and re-hashed to the point of exhaustion already.

Ironically, if all of the points raised thus far with the INATFAQ were immediately reversed to make these posters happy, then there would (within about 15 minutes of making the changes) be a new thread with different posters wanting the changes reversed.

If you take away a Drop Pod's ability to drop with troops inside, then it, as you said above, becomes almost useless.

How is this any different from a Vendetta deepstriking with a unit...or deepstriking while empty? You know that Vendettas and Valks can as well deepstrike, right?