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.

Does the rulebook describe how to perform a redeployment (not the rules for Scout, but what exactly what 'redeploy' means)? I see people asserting how it works, but I haven't noticed any page references yet.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

No, you're right it doesn't.
But I think it's a good indication of intent, if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning.
So while I agree with you RAW, I think RAI the embarked unit is also redeploying.

Nothing states that the embarked unit are redeploying, likewise nothing states that they aren't. Nothing in the deployment rules tells us how to deploy a vehicle with a unit inside to a new location.

There is no RAW answer to this unless someone can point to the passage that states how you redeploy a transport with a unit inside.

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

No, you're right it doesn't.
But I think it's a good indication of intent, if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning.
So while I agree with you RAW, I think RAI the embarked unit is also redeploying.

I think it does have meaning.

I deploy a LSS with scouts embarked. You deploy your forces. Based on that information I would rather have my scouts on the ground - that sentence forbids the disembarkation and I'm stuck with it.

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

No, you're right it doesn't.
But I think it's a good indication of intent, if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning.
So while I agree with you RAW, I think RAI the embarked unit is also redeploying.

As pointed out this does have meaning, as it forbids you disembarking the unit inside.

Stating the unit inside is redepolying means a vehicle can only move 6", another wrinkle that is not at all supported by the rules, intention or otherwise.

rigeld2 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

No, you're right it doesn't.
But I think it's a good indication of intent, if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning.
So while I agree with you RAW, I think RAI the embarked unit is also redeploying.

I think it does have meaning.

I deploy a LSS with scouts embarked. You deploy your forces. Based on that information I would rather have my scouts on the ground - that sentence forbids the disembarkation and I'm stuck with it.

"A unit cannot embark or disembark as part of a Scout Redepoyment"
True.
You could also take it, that as the transport has redeployed, the unit inside hasn't BUT since it has scout it still has the option to redeploy (but is then forbidden from disembarking).

Like I said I agree RAW. If this is the intent or not I can't be sure.

 grendel083 wrote:
"A unit cannot embark or disembark as part of a Scout Redepoyment"
True.
You could also take it, that as the transport has redeployed, the unit inside hasn't BUT since it has scout it still has the option to redeploy (but is then forbidden from disembarking).

Like I said I agree RAW. If this is the intent or not I can't be sure.

Sure - just saying that when you said " if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning. " it was an incorrect statement. It absolutely does have meaning.

I am not adding anything to this, but it popped up on the first page of Dakka and I just want to say that arguments like this are a large part of the reason why I stopped playing 40k. I know for a fact I am not the only one.

If an argument like this occured in game it would be resolved quick or I'd stop playing that battle and consider the disagreement. Though later I would come here to work it out if I was not satisfied with either outcome. It's pretty much the reson this forum exists, to have these arguments in a regulated fasion so you don't need to have them while you're playing.

And if you're saying it's just the way the rules are poorly written then it would seem you've not played many games of 40k's size and complexity or more. These sorts of arguments happen in all games.

What if I had a squad of Terminators with a DT, but I deployed them separately? Who has the scout rule? RAW: I have a unit that has a DT I get the scout special rule.

A unit cannot embark or disembark as part of a Scout redeployment. If we go with the argument that the Landraider is the one that made the scout redeployment, the Terminators cannot disembark as the Landraider was part of a Scout redeployment. If we go with the argument that the unit inside is making a scout redeployment, we are back a square one because a unit cannot disembark or embark as part of a Scout redeployment.

This is why I ask the question above. If we thought of this argument in reverse does it still hold up? I want to move my Terminators into their Landraider then move the Landraider. I think everyone would quickly say that I couldn't do this, so why would I be able to do basically the same thing but in reverse?

Yes, you would still get the Scout rule, but the LR wouldnt - you need to be embarked for the LR to get it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Homeskillet wrote:
Put it this way: play that scout shenanigans against me, and it's the last time we would play. Seems pretty clear to me that the unit scouted if they're inside their DT

Put it this way: Your personal feelings have literally zero to do with how the rules are currently written.
The rules currently allow this to work. I don't think it's intended, but that's how they work.
Perhaps read the tenets of the forum before responding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

Prove that it's obvious. I don't think it's obvious at all.

And this Sir is exactly why so many people have issues with "Rules Lawyering". Your attitude, and others, is not conducive for the game or hobby, in fact it is detremental. This is not an issue debating a game mechanic, or understanding the application of a rule. This is out right easter egging and as such is a glorified means of cheating. The fact that this kind of argument enjoys as wide a support as it does is disheartening.

TBH Cuthbert, I've seen many a dick use house rules to screw over players. In that case it's very clearly a glorified means of cheating. You could you know be sportsmanlike and just disagree and ask to roll off on the issue instead of storming off and shouting cheater.

However, this forum is for seeing what the rules actually say. It's for people to debate their ideas and interpretation of the words in the book. In a debate you argue with reasonable arguments and not get on a high horse to insult other people and say they are what's wrong with society. You argue the point not the man.
The reason it's not always obvious is because what a sentence says when read by a native speaker of British English can be quite different to what an American or a German or what someone with poor English might read it to mean.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Homeskillet wrote:
Put it this way: play that scout shenanigans against me, and it's the last time we would play. Seems pretty clear to me that the unit scouted if they're inside their DT

Put it this way: Your personal feelings have literally zero to do with how the rules are currently written.
The rules currently allow this to work. I don't think it's intended, but that's how they work.
Perhaps read the tenets of the forum before responding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

Prove that it's obvious. I don't think it's obvious at all.

And this Sir is exactly why so many people have issues with "Rules Lawyering". Your attitude, and others, is not conducive for the game or hobby, in fact it is detremental. This is not an issue debating a game mechanic, or understanding the application of a rule. This is out right easter egging and as such is a glorified means of cheating. The fact that this kind of argument enjoys as wide a support as it does is disheartening.

I agree the attitude would not be acceptable at the table, but this is why this forum exists. To iron out and find those rules that could be exploited. If like this threads RAW decision you dont agree with at least you know the arguments people will make and you can say "yes, it is the RAW but its silly so lets play it like the unit made the scout move too" at the table. Literally nothing is stopping you from playing by your interpretation.

Accusing someone of Rules Lawyering and Cheating for taking part in a rules discussion is completely out of order.
This forum is for rules discussions, not necessarily how you would play it on the tabletop.

Yes, cos I'm sober on here and I'm very much drunk when I play toy soldiers.

 grendel083 wrote:
Accusing someone of Rules Lawyering and Cheating for taking part in a rules discussion is completely out of order.
This forum is for rules discussions, not necessarily how you would play it on the tabletop.

thanks for the reminder Gren. Though I don't recall any direct accusation of that, thanks none the less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now i just have to know. what if I outright state that I am a rules lawyer and cheat every chance i get? It's not an accusation, it's an admission. lol

The embarked unit scouted if it is inside a landraider that scouted.

The fact it is outside of its deployment zone which it is not allowed to be unless it has scouted (or other special rule) means it used a special rule to get there. IE scout.

The models may not physically be on the table but the unit is in that spot in the vehicle that scouted, and could not be in that spot under the rules unless it was scouting with the vehicle.

Bausk,

In my opinion, it would depend if you use your understanding of how rules work for 'good or evil.' If you are at the table, not this forum obviously, and accept certain rules are broken then being a rule lawyer doesn't matter. If you do not exploit the loopholes that poorly written rules create then I have no problem with you being a rule lawyer. If you do allow your opponent flexibility to play a 'gray area' rule as he sees it then you are a good guy and using your rule lawyering powers for 'good.' Don't becomes one of those ******* guys, those give rule lawyers a bad name....

The cheating though... tsk tsk.

So you're a good rules lawyer when you let the other guy have the benefit of the doubt but a dick if you want the benefit of the the game we agreed to play?
Not knowing the rules or an exploit of them isn't unsportsmanlike behaviour on your opponents part so why should they always give way? Dice off seems like a much fairer way to do it.

Seems a bit of a double standard.

I want to be able to agree with the idea that we give the 'benefit to the game' but these are rules written by Game Workshop....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, you would still get the Scout rule, but the LR wouldn't - you need to be embarked for the LR to get it.

That is my understanding and why I asked the question, which means the Terminators made a scout move making them unable to embark or disembark their transport. Many people in the discussion are focused on the Terminators being inside the transport. They are also locked in on the Assault vehicle rule of the Landraider. If a person wants to understand how this rule works one needs to look at all the options on how the unit can be deployed and moved.

Would this be a discussion if I choose to use a tactical squad and rhino? The rhino is not an assault vehicle, but the heart of the issue still remains.

My personal thoughts is that while this "combo" sounds great; my gut reaction is that there's something fishy about it. Secondly, this "tactic" is predicated on a lot of factors going your way, which rarely happens, and doesn't seem like it would be a very strong tactic. Think of the points sink you have dropped just on Khan, the Terminators, and the Landraider makes me question would you be able to recoup those points before your opponent's whole army turned and fired everything they had at the squad.

Bkiker I think you've misunderstood the tactic. The Terminators don't disembark during the scout move they disembark on turn 1 so no assault for the Rhino + Tacticals.

As for viability I would say it is hugely viable. 2-3 Landraiders disembarking Terminators into someone's army turn 1 supported by perhaps drop poding tacticals or LSS scouts and you've got a strong alphastrike. In such a shooting edition that kind of turn 1 assault would be very effective particularly as your opponent can't null deploy.

The tactic is indeed to "scout move" inside the LR; and currently the unit inside is NOT making a Scout move - for proof, a non-scouting unit inside a scouting vehicle does not prevent a Scout move on the part of the vehicle.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Bkiker I think you've misunderstood the tactic. The Terminators don't disembark during the scout move they disembark on turn 1 so no assault for the Rhino + Tacticals.

As for viability I would say it is hugely viable. 2-3 Landraiders disembarking Terminators into someone's army turn 1 supported by perhaps drop poding tacticals or LSS scouts and you've got a strong alphastrike. In such a shooting edition that kind of turn 1 assault would be very effective particularly as your opponent can't null deploy.

As I mentioned, the tactic sounds a bit fishy, and is predicated on a lot of things going in your favor, which for me rarely happens. If we go with your suggestion of 3 Landraiders with Terminators, Khan on bike, that comes to 1500 points. That doesn't not include any troop choices. In a kill point mission, this would be nice, but that is a rarity now. The tactic seems to just destroy your opponent's army forgetting about objectives. In which case, I just focus on taking out what few troop choices the White Scar player has.

I want to make it clear that I think there is something dodgy about this. In a friendly, pickup game, I would allow it just to see how it plays, or roll off to decide who was right about the assaulting after redeployment. In a tournament, I would hope officials would have a ruling on this before hand, or rule on it during the tournament. It is an interesting puzzle though.

You can focus on the troops if you truly want but imagine what effective shooting you'll have left that survives 10-15 terminators, 2-3 land raiders,
khan and then selective fire from a drop pod of marines or bike units with special weapons like grav guns aiming to shoot riptides, tanks and anything
else that is a threat. I'm a friend of Aidobmac, the guy who started this thread. We thought if this was possible, and after reading every post I still believe it is
though we wanted to have a word with the local TO organizers in Ontario such as for Warmaster's Challenge and Conquest Toronto their opinion, then we would consider making
an alpha strike White Scars army around this. This was specifically thought up for a doubles tournament setting where big shooty units from your opponents
tend to come in 1 to 2 units that just get horrifically smashed before they even have a chance to act. You don't think it's as viable as it sounds but it heavily dictates how your
opponent plays the game and usually he doesn't find a favor as your terminators with a 12" scout, a 6" land raider move turn 1, a 6" disembark and then a 2d6" charge range.
Even going turn two, a land raider can but doesn't usually blow up from 1-2 shots tossed at it. Plus if Khan assassinates a cheap character in a doubles tournament and they come
up a lot, hes up his warlord trait plus first blood plus a warlord then and there which gives some leeway room into having minimal troops.

The mentality of why we wanted to try this aside, Aidobmac seriously means that he doesn't want to cheat his opponents and came here looking for strong arguments that debunked
this idea because him and myself couldn't readily find one that settled the issue. Some people comment that they would lose friends or would quit the game then and there had this been
seen at the table but where we came here hoping for constructive criticism and honestly seeing the legitimacy of the rule, they wouldn't hear any of it without even thinking and that
in my mind puts them at a much lower standing then us as sportsmanlike players.

The cornerstone I think that now affirmed my position that this is legal is the guy's post a few above this one where if the vehicle had scout and the unit didn't the vehicle could still
scout with the unit in it. Even though the land raider is given scout by the terminators who are given scout by Khan's special rule, the land raider now has scout and thus makes its own scout move
regardless of the occupants.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Homeskillet wrote:
Put it this way: play that scout shenanigans against me, and it's the last time we would play. Seems pretty clear to me that the unit scouted if they're inside their DT

Put it this way: Your personal feelings have literally zero to do with how the rules are currently written.
The rules currently allow this to work. I don't think it's intended, but that's how they work.
Perhaps read the tenets of the forum before responding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

Prove that it's obvious. I don't think it's obvious at all.

And this Sir is exactly why so many people have issues with "Rules Lawyering". Your attitude, and others, is not conducive for the game or hobby, in fact it is detremental. This is not an issue debating a game mechanic, or understanding the application of a rule. This is out right easter egging and as such is a glorified means of cheating. The fact that this kind of argument enjoys as wide a support as it does is disheartening.

Your tone implies that you think I play this way. If you'll read my post again it's pretty obvious I don't think it's intended and don't encourage people playing this way.

I'm not a cheater and do not support playing this way. I resent the implication. Reported.