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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zimko wrote:
No, I don't believe that RAI they wanted models without eyes to not be able to use LoS to shoot since they give you the option to give guns to beings that don't have eyes.

This goes against what you said previously.

I mean if

Zimko wrote:
...the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.

Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.

So if the rule-writers had intended for models without eyes to be able to shoot they would have wrote an exception into the rules like they did for vehicles.

Of course then you say this

I can't read their minds so RAI is subjective.

Which of course is 100% true, so we must go by the RAW since RAI is impossible to determine.

In this case the RAW is broke and the game breaks, so we have to come up with a house rule to fix the situation either way by allowing them to stay embarked (House rule) or forcing them to disembark just like the CoC rules do for a DP that is embarked (House rule with established precedent)

For uniformness Ill go with the forcing them to disembark because it is a similar situation to a Champion of Chaos getting the Demon Prince boon on the table.

For the sake of uniformness, in a tournament environment I'd agree with your house-rule. Because if the writers had fore-sight enough when writing the rules for Champion of Chaos to realize that they were creating an illegal game-state (and then create a rule to correct it) then it is reasonable to assume they did not realize they were creating a similar situation with the Possessed rule and could have simply copy-pasted the rules for Champion of Chaos. They may have intended for the Possessed to remain on-board when turning into Beasts but for RAW tournament the game can-not continue without resolving the illegal game-state and the quickest way to remove the illegal game-state is to copy the rules from Champion of Chaos because they create a nearly identical situation. (thus 'precedent' as you say)

So I agree with you for the purposes of this forum.

HIWPI (not in a tournament) though is to allow the Possessed to remain on-board because it fits their fluff and isn't too OP. That is why I believe their RAI was to leave them on-board but they screwed up their rules so badly that RAW it doesn't work that way.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I know exactly what the design team meant by the LoS rules and how they apply to models without eyes. I've never met anyone that didn't. It is really very possible to know RaI in a lot of situations.

This is 100% false, you can never, ever determine the RAI unless you ask the writers what they intended. But we can't do this so RAI is impossible to determine. We can make an educated guess to the RAI and most of it is probably along the lines of what was intended, but we can never say for sure because we just do not know what they intended, we only know what the RAW is because that is what they have written.

Granted for this rule the RaI is not as clear as for say LoS for eyeless models or Grav Weapons and invulnerable/cover saves.

None of those are clear RAI, at all since we literally can not tell what the writers were thinking.

But one of tge[sic] other options the possessed can roll gives their transport shrouded which implies that they are intended to use transports and at best the must get out crowd have RaW is broken. So the solution serms[sic] obvious to me.

House rules can overcome any broken situation, but they are just that, house rules.

As for knowing RaW the minute DeathReaper proves 100% that we qre[sic] not all hallucinating as to what is written then I'll agree RaW us[sic] knowable and RaI isn't. No RaW fundamentalist has ever been able to prove that yet. But given DeathReaper's post above he must be able to ir[sic] he has to retract that statement.

Same old same old...

I do not have to prove 100% that we are not all hallucinating. Because it does not matter if we are or not. This is because everyone agrees on what is written in the book so even if we are all hallucinating as to what is written we are all hallucinating the same exact words, therefore it is our reality even if it is a collective hallucination.

RaW is knowable because that is what is written in the book. We all agree that page 3 left column, 1st graph Characteristic Profiles heading, 1st sentence says "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics."(3) Because that is what is literally written in the book.

Replied at same time. See above.

I think you're both right. Fling is right for wanting to defend house-rule A (allowing the Possessed to remain onboard) because it fits the fluff and gives them more options (thus a more diverse and fun game).

DeathReaper is right because RAW it creates an illegal game-state that must be resolved for tournament play before continuing, and his house-rule is a copy-paste of another rule from the same book that fixes an almost identical situation.

Some comments-

1- Champion of Chaos is not a good comparison. Champion of chaos turns a non bulky model into a very bulky model [takes up 4 spaces] so in many cases it would exceed the transport capacity of any vehicle the IC was in, if the IC is attached to a squad. The possessed when they become beasts, their size does not change.

2- Chaos vehicles are not listed as having a capacity of infantry but a capacity of models, so there is no illegal state generated by holding infantry versus beasts, as a chaos rhino is not capacity 10 infantry but capacity 10 models.

3- There is no RAW that models have to be a certain type to be embarked, or remain embarked, or to dismebark.

4- There is RAW that models must be a certain type to embark.

blaktoof wrote:
Some comments-

2- Chaos vehicles are not listed as having a capacity of infantry but a capacity of models, so there is no illegal state generated by holding infantry versus beasts, as a chaos rhino is not capacity 10 infantry but capacity 10 models.

BRB: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity."

You're right, the Chaos codex only says how many models it can carry. But the BRB says that those models must be 'Infantry'. The rule in question changes Possessed from 'Infantry' to 'Beasts' thus they are no longer allowed to be carried by a transport according to RAW.

Without breaking any rules we managed to get Beasts on the transport, but that doesn't mean they are allowed to be there. Thus the unintentional illegal game-state to which only a house-rule can resolve.

If we take nothing else from this thread, the above should be accepted by everyone. How you resolve the situation is honestly up to you.

Zimko wrote:
Replied at same time. See above.

I think you're both right. Fling is right for wanting to defend house-rule A (allowing the Possessed to remain onboard) because it fits the fluff and gives them more options (thus a more diverse and fun game).

By house rule A you mean RaW I assume? Also the most likely RaI (which is far more relevant).

DeathReaper is right because RAW it creates an illegal game-state that must be resolved for tournament play before continuing, and his house-rule is a copy-paste of another rule from the same book that fixes an almost identical situation.

An illegal state is only created if you believe that a Codex rule that forces you to break a BrB rule is not in conflict with that rule. Which is frankly a ludicrous stand point to maintain.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Zimko wrote:

DeathReaper is right because RAW it creates an illegal game-state that must be resolved for tournament play before continuing, and his house-rule is a copy-paste of another rule from the same book that fixes an almost identical situation.

An illegal state is only created if you believe that a Codex rule that forces you to break a BrB rule is not in conflict with that rule. Which is frankly a ludicrous stand point to maintain.

Why is it ludicrous? The writers are perfectly capable of making a mistake. Following the rules in the Codex does indeed force you to break a rule in the BrB (by allowing non-Infantry to be on a transport).

I'm sure this was not intended, and I'm sure the writers intended the Possessed to remain on-board the transport. But what they intended doesn't change the fact that they're not allowed by RAW to be on the transport. So allowing them to stay on-board is a house-rule.

And I'm totally fine with playing it that way. But I'd pass it by my TO before going into a tournament. And outside of a tournament I'd politely inform my opponent of this possibility and let them know how I'd like to play it. If they disagree then I wouldn't play them because it would affect my army's overall strategy.

That is really the worst part about this rule. The two logical house-rules drastically change how you'd build your army list.

Why is it ludicrous? The writers are perfectly capable of making a mistake. Following the rules in the Codex does indeed force you to break a rule in the BrB (by allowing non-Infantry to be on a transport). 

I've never said thinking the writers made a mistake is ludicrous. I said thinking that a rule that forces you break another rule is not a case of those two rules being in conflict is a ludicrous stance to take. Are you honestly claiming you think that it is reasonable to say that a rule forcing you to break another rule is not in conflict with that rule? Really?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Why is it ludicrous? The writers are perfectly capable of making a mistake. Following the rules in the Codex does indeed force you to break a rule in the BrB (by allowing non-Infantry to be on a transport). 

I've never said thinking the writers made a mistake is ludicrous. I said thinking that a rule that forces you break another rule is not a case of those two rules being in conflict is a ludicrous stance to take. Are you honestly claiming you think that it is reasonable to say that a rule forcing you to break another rule is not in conflict with that rule? Really?

I'm honestly confused by what you mean.

I'll paraphrase my understanding of the rules so you can help me out or maybe I'll answer my own confusion.

BRB says that transports can only carry 'Infantry' models.

This Codex rule (sorry I forget the name) changes Possessed from 'Infantry' to 'Beasts'.

The Codex rule thus forces you to be in conflict with a rule in the BRB without giving you express permission to override the BRB rule.

Ah, so perhaps because the Codex forces you to do this, then this is a situation where Codex trumps BRB? I'd buy that.

The two rules are not conflicting rules, they just force a breakage of another rule.

The Stormraven example is a perfect example of a conflicting rule. The codex says passengers can disembark if the vehicle has moved over 6 inches, the BRB says passengers can not disembark if the vehicle has moved over 6 inches. This is a conflict.

Nothing in the chaos codex says that beasts can be embarked upon a transport, and as such this rule is NOT IN CONFLICT with the BRB rule.

blaktoof wrote:
1- Champion of Chaos is not a good comparison. Champion of chaos turns a non bulky model into a very bulky model [takes up 4 spaces] so in many cases it would exceed the transport capacity of any vehicle the IC was in, if the IC is attached to a squad. The possessed when they become beasts, their size does not change.

It is a good comparison as the unit type changes, non infantry are not allowed to be embarked so this sets a good precedent.

2- Chaos vehicles are not listed as having a capacity of infantry but a capacity of models, so there is no illegal state generated by holding infantry versus beasts, as a chaos rhino is not capacity 10 infantry but capacity 10 models.

Good thing the BRB clarifies that it must be infantry models.

3- There is no RAW that models have to be a certain type to be embarked, or remain embarked, or to dismebark.

False, 100%
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)

Only infantry may be carried on the transport, there is not an allowance for any other unit types to be embarked and since this is a permissive ruleset and that ruleset does not say beasts can be embarked, then they can not be embarked.

4- There is RAW that models must be a certain type to embark.

this one is correct.

The Codex rule thus forces you to be in conflict with a rule in the BRBwithout giving you express permission to override the BRB rule. 

If you agree there is a conflict between a rule that forces you to break another rule then RaW they are allowed to stay on board as there is a conflict between the two rules and one of them is in a codex so it wins. DeathReaper believes when a rule forces you to break another rule that those two rules are not in conflict. It is that belief that I am stating is ludicrous.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The Codex rule thus forces you to be in conflict with a rule in the BRBwithout giving you express permission to override the BRB rule. 

If you agree there is a conflict between a rule that forces you to break another rule then RaW they are allowed to stay on board as there is a conflict between the two rules and one of them is in a codex so it wins. DeathReaper believes when a rule forces you to break another rule that those two rules are not in conflict. It is that belief that I am stating is ludicrous.

This is logical, however I wouldn't say his belief is 'ludicrous' as that seems a little harsh. I completely understand what he is saying with his Stormraven example. He's saying that where a Codex rule trumps a BrB rule, the writers are very specific about it. In this case the writers are not specific about it because they never mention transport capacity in their rule for turning Possessed into Beasts.

DeathReaper is right that the rule itself is not in conflict with the BRB. But it creates a situation that is in conflict. He believes that this breaks the rules. You believe this is just another form of the codex being 'in conflict' with the BRB and thus the codex wins. Both logical. Agree to disagree?

Zimko wrote:
DeathReaper is right that the rule itself is not in conflict with the BRB. But it creates a situation that is in conflict. He believes that this breaks the rules. You believe this is just another form of the codex being 'in conflict' with the BRB and thus the codex wins. Both logical. Agree to disagree?

His stance is not logical as the rules are not in conflict as I have shown.

3- There is no RAW that models have to be a certain type to be embarked, or remain embarked, or to dismebark. False, 100%
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)

Only infantry may be carried on the transport, there is not an allowance for any other unit types to be embarked and since this is a permissive ruleset and that ruleset does not say beasts can be embarked, then they can not be embarked.

The rule you quoted doesn't state only infantry.

It says a transport can carry a single infantry unit...

This does not say that it may not carry any other unit or may only carry an infantry unit.

Considering you recently argued similarly that the lack of a permissive rule does not mean you do not have permission to do it, as the transport capacity of the vehicle is 10 models we can then look to the vehicle entry and see that there are 10 models inside of it....

in seriousness though, I did not have my book in front of me when I stated 2, I only recalled the first line from embarkation which says infantry may embark, and did not recall off the top of my head that there is further text stating what may be carried. That would of course make my statement 2 incorrect.

I do agree that its a permissive rules set and we only have permission for infantry to embark, or be embarked on a transport.

Leaving the models in a state where they either need special permission to stay embarked, or a rule requiring they are forced to disembark.

One assumes RAI that the people whom wrote the rules for possessed in the crimson slaughter supplement meant for the models to be able to remain embarked as they make no mention of the having to disembark if they are embarked. The other assumes that despite the writers of the crimson slaughter supplement addressing what happens to the unit and its vehicle for another of the options[option 3] from the possessed table, that they did not consider the unit could be embarked for option 1[becomes beasts]. Given that the same person probably wrote the table, there are only 3 options and they included the possibility of the unit being a vehicle for one of them, they probably thought of the possibility of the unit being in a vehicle for all of them.

There seems like there are only two reasonable ways to resolve the situation here- make up a rule that does not exist to force disembarkation to support the basic rules in the BRB, and ignore the RAI, or break the basic rule in the BRB and remain embarked.

HIWPI the unit may remain embarked.

Reasoning, the alternative of forcing the disembark is based on the champion of chaos rule where the model goes from normal size[takes up 1 space] to very bulky [takes up 4 spaces. Rhinos specifically state they may not carry models that are bulky, very bulky, or extremely bulky. I believe RAI this is why the spawn created from champion of chaos is forced to dismebark, because it is very bulky and no longer may fit inside the Rhino. I do not think the RAW in the BRB was written with regards to models changing types during embarkation as if it were they would have said something, this of course is RAI. Despite the fact that beasts are not allowed to embark on a transport in the BRB if the models could have already gotten on, and their type changes but their size does not change and is a sized allowed to be on a rhino, I would let my opponent keep them embarked.

From the space wolves codex, if an IC has purchased fenrisian wolves they may embark on the transport with the IC. From the BRB unit summary in the reference section fenrsian wolves are beasts. So there is precedence for beasts being on a transport, if they are led there by an infantry model. The rules for fenrisian wolves say the count as two models [bulky] if they are on board. I am aware this is a specific allowance.

This is logical, however I wouldn't say his belief is 'ludicrous' as that seems a little harsh. I completely understand what he is saying with his Stormraven example. He's saying that where a Codex rule trumps aBrB rule, the writers are very specific about it. In this case the writers are not specific about it because they never mention transport capacity in their rule for turning Possessed into Beasts.

The Stormraven example doesn't need page 7 to work tjough as it is a case of specific versus general. Just how in general you can not assault on the same turn as disembarking but the assault vehicle Special rule specifically alters this. This is fundamentally how permissive rulesets work. Page 7 states if there is a conflict between codex rules and BrB rules then codex wins. Here there is a clear conflict as following the codex rules causes you to break a BrB rule hence page 7 applies.

Claiming that when a rule forces you to break another rule does not create a conflict in those rules is ludicrous. I'm sorry but I just can't accept any reasonable would agree with that.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Here there is a clear conflict as following the codex rules causes you to break a BrB rule hence page 7 applies.

This is not true at all.

There is no conflict in the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Here there is a clear conflict as following the codex rules causes you to break a BrB rule hence page 7 applies.

This is not true at all.

There is no conflict in the rules.

So the rule doesn't force you to break the BrB? In which case cool they can stay in as no rule is broken.

So which is it can they stay in because no rule is broken? Or is a rule being broken which means that they can stay in due to page 7?

 FlingitNow wrote:
[So the rule doesn't force you to break the BrB? In which case cool they can stay in as no rule is broken.

It creates an illegal situation.

So which is it can they stay in because no rule is broken? Or is a rule being broken which means that they can stay in due to page 7?

Neither as that is a loaded question.

The rule in question is not in conflict with the brb.

When rolling on the "Slaves to the Voices" chart a squad's unit type can change from Infantry to Beast.

Nothing in the BRB is in conflict with this rule, and the squad is allowed to change its type. (No conflict here)

The unit can not legally be inside the transport as they exceed the transports capacity. No conflict here as the Codex does not say that beasts may be embarked.

If you think the codex says that the beasts can be embarked please cite a rule, as I have cited rules that say they can not be embarked.

RAW the game breaks as a rule has been broken with no RAW to fix it.

So RaW the codex rule forces you to break a BrB rule. Is that correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So RaW the codex rule forces you to break a BrB rule. Is that correct?

No that is not correct.

The codex rule changes the units type. This is a legal change.

A unit of beasts cannot contribute towards the number of embarked infantry because they are not infantry. They certainly cannot exceed the one infantry limit.

Is Y in excess of a 1X limit? No, not without some comparative value assigned to it.

You have a limit that cannot be exceeded of one blue item.. Does that limit the number of red items? Not at all.

On the capacity scale, which accounts only for infantry, beasts do not even show up and claiming they can exceed it is absurd.

 Abandon wrote:
A unit of beasts cannot contribute towards the number of embarked infantry because they are not infantry. They certainly cannot exceed the one infantry limit.

In a permissive ruleset they can since there is no allowance for them to be there in the first place.

Is Y in excess of a 1X limit? No, not without some comparative value assigned to it.

Yes Y is in excess of 1X because you are allowed to have Y <= 0 embarked in this situation.

You have a limit that cannot be exceeded of one blue item.. Does that limit the number of red items? Not at all.

The permissive ruleset limits the red items by virtue of not being allowed there at all...

On the capacity scale, which accounts only for infantry, beasts do not even show up and claiming they can exceed it is absurd.

Until you realize it is a permissive ruleset and the number of allowed beast models on a transport is <=0 (<=0 means less than or equal to zero).

Therefore you may not have any beasts upon a transport, any beasts that somehow become passengers exceed the limit of zero beasts embarked upon the transport.

Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to

We have no instructions on what to do about them therefore we cannot do anything. Nothing statesthe game halts, so it doesnt

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to

We have no instructions on what to do about them therefore we cannot do anything. Nothing statesthe game halts, so it doesnt

Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to, they are also in a place they are not allowed to be.

The contents of a transport are in a place they can not be and that breaks the rules.

To continue the game we must fix the illegal state. If we don't we may as well not use the rulebook at all. Why bother following the rules if we are going to allow a rule to be broken?

Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to, they are also in a place they are not allowed to be.

Underlined the part that is false in the rules. They absolutely can get there the rules tell us how to do that.

The contents of a transport are in a place they can not be and that breaks the rules. 

You can't have it both ways you said it does not break the rules. Which is it? Does following the codex rule force you to break a BrB rule or not?

To continue the game we must fix the illegal state. If we don't we may as well not use the rulebook at all. Why bother following the rules if we are going to allow a rule to be broken?

Why must we? What is telling us to do so? Your fix does not prevent a rule being broken in your interpretation anyway so what is the point persisting? As for the 2nd sentence I take it you don't allow helmeted space marines to shoot or assault anything ever? Just do what the rules tell you to rather than invent rules out of thin air and try to enforce them on people.

DR - no, they are in a place they CAN get to, as the rules just showed that. WHat you are trying to decide is: do you have any ability to resolve that, or any need to?

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to

The contents of a transport are in a place they can not be and that breaks the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - no, they are in a place they CAN get to, as the rules just showed that.

Nosferatu, you've just successively argued that they can and cannot GET there, without giving a reason for either, while in both cases not addressing the fact that they cannot BE there at all ("never be exceeded") regardless. Not sure where you're even coming from with that.

Context there, actually. They cannot get into the transport as Beasts, however they are actually "there" due to this rule.

Nothing states what to do with them, so I would leave them where they are - they cannot disembark, the CoC rule is utterly different (they arent replaced by a new unit, they arent very bulky, etc) so isnt very useful precedent, etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - no, they are in a place they CAN get to, as the rules just showed that...

You contradict yourself here.

Fact remains that the transport capacity has been exceeded as such a rule has been broken and to continue the game we must fix the illegal state.

If we don't we may as well not use the rulebook at all.

Why bother following the rules if we are going to allow a rule to be broken?

Fact remains that the transport capacity has been exceeded as such a rule has been broken and to continue the game we must fix the illegal state. 

So you admit a rule is broken due to a codex rule. Hence page 7 becomes active. Thank you fir proving RaW they can stay in.

Fact remains that the transport capacity has been exceeded as such a rule has been broken and to continue the game we must fix the illegal state. 

We'll ignore that you've just proven its not an illegal state. How does disembarking fix it? For them to disembark they must have been embarked thus the rule has still been broken in your interpretation.

If we don't we may as well not use the rulebook at all. 

Sorry what? If we don't follow your made up rules we may as well not use the rulebook at all? Did that even make sense when you typed it?

Why bother following the rules if we are going to allow a rule to be broken?

Your fix results in just as many rule breaks (regardless of interpretation) as allowing them to stay in there. So what are you now proposing?