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.

 doctortom wrote:


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.

 davou wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


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.

So, if they start the game embarked, where are they?

Edit: Asking from a PURELY RAW STANDPOINT. Not How You Would Play It, just what the rules actually say.

 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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, if they start the game embarked, where are they?

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.

Guys, common sense. Please.

If a transport is on the battlefield, for all intents and purposes (apart from literally), so are the models embarked.

The same is true if the transport is in reserves.

I genuinely wonder if some of you actually play games the way you claim things should work "RAW".

 doctortom wrote:


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?

I'd say that they meant to allow it.

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, if they start the game embarked, where are they?

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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, if they start the game embarked, where are they?

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?

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, if they start the game embarked, where are they?

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.

 davou wrote:

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.

 skchsan wrote:
{snip}

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.

 davou wrote:

 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.

 skchsan wrote:


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.

 skchsan wrote:

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.

 skchsan wrote:
From your other post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
no, they don't take damage twice.


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...

 doctortom wrote:


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...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's perfectly possible. I do it all the time.

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.

 davou wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


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?

No you didn't sit, but they sat you down.

 davou 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.

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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 davou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, if they start the game embarked, where are they?

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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:

 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.

 skchsan wrote:


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.

Yep; this seems to be the most concise