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:

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.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

It's like someone else didn't point out the exact same thing and then he literally posted 3 hours before you did to respond to it.
Oh - no, that's exactly what happened. Did you fail to read his response?

Sorry, lost me there. Less sarcasm maybe?

 FlingitNow wrote:

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.

There is a difference between a conflict and a rule breakage...

The codex rule changes the units type. This is a legal change. There is no conflict with the rules that change the units type. Ergo page 7 does not enter into it.

Thank you fir proving RaW they can stay in.

I actually did not prove they can stay in the transport.

I have proven that it is illegal for them to be embarked however.

 FlingitNow wrote:

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?

I never said " If we don't follow your made up rules we may as well not use the rulebook at all" please re-read what I wrote...

I said we need to fix the illegal state, If we don't we may as well not use the rulebook at all...

deathreaper wrote: 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?

The disembarking does break a rule, but then the game can continue as there is not an illegal unit embarked upon a transport that is can not be embarked upon anymore therefore the game can continue. Sounds like a good fix as there are not any units illegally embarked anymore.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sorry, lost me there. Less sarcasm maybe?

I was trying to point out that someone else said the exact same thing he did, and you'd already addressed it - 3 hours before he posted (so it wasn't a "ninja").

DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

There is allowance as rules lead us to this scenario. Following the rules you end up with beasts embarked in a transport. That is permission for said state. You are looking for denial that is not there.

You need to learn the difference between 'only infantry' and 'only one infantry'. One of these excludes anything that is not infantry and the other does not. Rules cause the beasts to be embarked and there is no denial of this state.

Actually, as I will continue to point out, it is rules that cause the beasts(red items) to be embarked.

No rule sets a capacity limit for beasts. Rules caused them to be there, now your making up reasons it's illegal.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

Thank you for clarifying your position. I agree except they actually are allowed to disembark. The rules for it allow models (no specific type mentioned) to disembark.

"A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 5"." Page 79, BRB, Disembarking

 Abandon wrote:
There is allowance as rules lead us to this scenario. Following the rules you end up with beasts embarked in a transport. That is permission for said state. You are looking for denial that is not there.

Cite the rule that tells you that beasts can be embarked on a transport please.

You need to learn the difference between 'only infantry' and 'only one infantry'. One of these excludes anything that is not infantry and the other does not. Rules cause the beasts to be embarked and there is no denial of this state.

You need to learn what a permissive ruleset is.

One infantry unit is allowed means nothing else is allowed unless the rules specifically allow it...

No rule sets a capacity limit for beasts.

False. we do not have an allowance for beasts to be embarked as they exceed the transport capacity because they are not any rules stating beasts can be embarked. Without an allowance the number of beasts that may be embarked is zero.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
There is allowance as rules lead us to this scenario. Following the rules you end up with beasts embarked in a transport. That is permission for said state. You are looking for denial that is not there.

Cite the rule that tells you that beasts can be embarked on a transport please.

You need to learn the difference between 'only infantry' and 'only one infantry'. One of these excludes anything that is not infantry and the other does not. Rules cause the beasts to be embarked and there is no denial of this state.

You need to learn what a permissive ruleset is.

One infantry unit is allowed means nothing else is allowed unless the rules specifically allow it...

No rule sets a capacity limit for beasts.

False. we do not have an allowance for beasts to be embarked as they exceed the transport capacity because they are not any rules stating beasts can be embarked. Without an allowance the number of beasts that may be embarked is zero.

It's the rule transforms infantry, even while embarked, into beasts. It's been mentioned once or twice already. Rules causing things to happen make those things permitted and legal unless you can find denial.

The wording of the capacity limit rule does not say that. It limits the number of infantry units and nothing else.

 Abandon wrote:
It's the rule transforms infantry, even while embarked, into beasts. It's been mentioned once or twice already. Rules causing things to happen make those things permitted and legal unless you can find denial.

the rule transforms infantry into beasts. However beasts may not be embarked and the rule does not say that beasts can be embarked so they still may not be embarked. The rule that changes their type breaks the rules when the unit is embarked.

The wording of the capacity limit rule does not say that. It limits the number of infantry units and nothing else.

The permissive ruleset limits the number of models that may embark on a transport. A model may embark if there is a rule stating they may embark. Beasts have no such rule and as per the permissive ruleset are not allowed on a transport.

They do not need permission to embark. They are already in a state of embarkation.

You are stating that a capacity that limits embarkING limits you once already embarkED, which it cannot do

A rhino has a capacity of 10 models - permission granted. Usually this is restrcted to letting infantry units embark, however we are not embarking

Are 10 beast possessed no longer 10 models?

Rigeld - apologies, the quotation structure meant it was tricky to know if you were aiming at myself or DR. Thank you for clarifying.

10 models is a bit of a side step, only models part of infantry units count towards transport capacity, and the codex doesn't contest that rule.

can carry a single infantry unit....... up to a total number of models equal to the vehicles transport capacity

(Within the same sentence)
Contextually that’s models within an infantry unit... and that quote is also part of the paragraph which defines what passangers are.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They do not need permission to embark. They are already in a state of embarkation.

You are stating that a capacity that limits embarkING limits you once already embarkED, which it cannot do

A rhino has a capacity of 10 models - permission granted. Usually this is restrcted to letting infantry units embark, however we are not embarking

Are 10 beast possessed no longer 10 models?

Rigeld - apologies, the quotation structure meant it was tricky to know if you were aiming at myself or DR. Thank you for clarifying.

The capacity doesn't just limit embarking. It limits capacity of the transport.

The Capacity of a rhino is 10 models. from page 78 "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded"

Okay we know the maximum passenger capacity can never be exceeded. Okay lets see what the transport can carry...

"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. " (Emphasis mine 78)

So there is an allowance for the transport to carry a "single Infantry unit". Where is the allowance for the transport to carry beasts, because I am not seeing it.

Therefore since there is no allowance for any Beasts to be carried we can not carry any beasts and as such the capacity of the transport in regards to Beasts models is zero. Therefore we may not have any Beasts embarked because the rules do not allow a transport to carry Beasts.

Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?

RaW there is a strong argument that they could. Personally I'd play that they couldn't as that again causes game breaking issues. As for what happens then nothing happens. Both units could stay onboard and disembark when they wanted.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?

RaW there is a strong argument that they could. Personally I'd play that they couldn't as that again causes game breaking issues. As for what happens then nothing happens. Both units could stay onboard and disembark when they wanted.

What about if the possessed turned back into infantry again? What would happen then (if anything)?

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?

RaW there is a strong argument that they could. Personally I'd play that they couldn't as that again causes game breaking issues. As for what happens then nothing happens. Both units could stay onboard and disembark when they wanted.

What about if the possessed turned back into infantry again? What would happen then (if anything)?

It all depends on what you believe the codex rule is in conflict the entire "one unit of infantry" or just "unit of infantry". If the former then the CSMs can get in and stay in even if the other unit turns back to infantry (essentially the same conflict occurs as when they turned into beasts in the first place). If you believe it is only in conflict with the infantry part (the more sensible reading IMO) then they can't get in there in the first place.

If you believe there is no restriction on number of non-infantry units that can be embarked then the unit can embark but once it changes back to infantry you have a broken RaW with no way to resolve.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?

RaW there is a strong argument that they could. Personally I'd play that they couldn't as that again causes game breaking issues. As for what happens then nothing happens. Both units could stay onboard and disembark when they wanted.

What about if the possessed turned back into infantry again? What would happen then (if anything)?

Then by following the rules you break another as two infantry does exceed the max capacity listed for transports. There's no rules to cover this scenario so it seems some house rules or a HYWPI consensus would be needed in order to resolve this. Probably best if that rule did not allow this to happen in the first place. RAI is fairly clear that they only intended infantry to be embarked so I'd suggest that house/HYWPI rule be they immediately disembark when the turn into beasts. Besides the crew will kick them out, no one wants to clean up that mess... Think of the upholstery!

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
It's the rule transforms infantry, even while embarked, into beasts. It's been mentioned once or twice already. Rules causing things to happen make those things permitted and legal unless you can find denial.

the rule transforms infantry into beasts. However beasts may not be embarked and the rule does not say that beasts can be embarked so they still may not be embarked. The rule that changes their type breaks the rules when the unit is embarked.

The wording of the capacity limit rule does not say that. It limits the number of infantry units and nothing else.

The permissive ruleset limits the number of models that may embark on a transport. A model may embark if there is a rule stating they may embark. Beasts have no such rule ans as per the permissive ruleset are not allowed on a transport.

If the rule causes beasts to be embarked then what more permission do you need? That's like saying weapons aren't permitted to cause wounds, they're only permitted to cause hits. In actuality those hit can turn into wounds. Is it direct permission? No but it's permission all the same... Following the rules things reach a certain state. That state is permitted whether directly stated or not. Your basically saying that following the natural progression of the rules is not allowed unless it creates a state that is specifically noted as permitted. That is nonsense. You are permitted to follow the rules to any outcome they lead you to unless it is specifically denied.

Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.

Permission saying that a unit that exceeds the capacity can be embarked on a transport. because as of right now, only infantry have permission to be embarked.

Abandon wrote:Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.

I am talking about being embarked, not embarking.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Permission saying that a unit that exceeds the capacity can be embarked on a transport.

It has not bee exceeded as there are zero infantry units embarked.

 DeathReaper wrote:

because as of right now, only infantry have permission to be embarked.

One infantry is a cap, yes. That says nothing about beasts which currently have no limit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Abandon wrote:Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.

I am talking about being embarked, not embarking.

Then please write what you mean.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Permission saying that a unit that exceeds the capacity can be embarked on a transport.

It has not bee exceeded as there are zero infantry units embarked.

Incorrect, try again.

The capacity is one infantry unit. The maximum number of allowable beasts models is zero, therefore if there are beasts embarked the capacity of zero beasts has been exceeded. This is demonstrably true.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

because as of right now, only infantry have permission to be embarked.

One infantry is a cap, yes. That says nothing about beasts which currently have no limit.

Beasts do have a limit as they are not allowed to be embarked at all, unless you have a rules citation that says that beasts can be embarked, but I do not see that rule anywhere in the BRR.

Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Abandon wrote:Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.

I am talking about being embarked, not embarking.

Then please write what you mean.

I have, I have been talking about being embarked for the past couple of pages now.

 DeathReaper wrote:


The capacity is one infantry unit. The maximum number of allowable beasts models is zero, therefore if there are beasts embarked the capacity of zero beasts has been exceeded. This is demonstrably true.

"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and or any number of Independent Characters..." In the English language this does not say anything about nor limit anything but Infantry units. It is specific that Infantry have a max capacity of one. A max capacity is not listed for anything else. Assuming that means it is zero for anything else is exactly that, an assumption.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:


One infantry is a cap, yes. That says nothing about beasts which currently have no limit.

Beasts do have a limit as they are not allowed to be embarked at all, unless you have a rules citation that says that beasts can be embarked, but I do not see that rule anywhere in the BRR.

You have yet to show this beast limit you keep talking about. It does not exist and permission to have them there has been shown over and over again.

Infantry embark - permitted
-then-
Infantry turn into beasts - permitted

They are allowed to turn into beasts while embarked. There it is. Permission for embarked beasts.

Find a shred of denial.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Abandon wrote:Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.

I am talking about being embarked, not embarking.

Then please write what you mean.

I have, I have been talking about being embarked for the past couple of pages now.

From this page...

 DeathReaper wrote:

The permissive ruleset limits the number of models that may embark on a transport. A model may embark if there is a rule stating they may embark. Beasts have no such rule ans as per the permissive ruleset are not allowed on a transport.

Assuming honesty one can only conclude that you either do not have a grasp on the proper use of words and tensing to indicate a state vs an action or that you did not care to take the time to type in the extra words/letters despite the fact that it completely alters the statement. In any case what you claim to have been attempting to say was not communicated and something else was. Please do better next time as this makes people unsure that you know the meaning what you say. For now I will accept your proclaimed meaning as of a state, not an action.

 Abandon wrote:
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and or any number of Independent Characters..." In the English language this does not say anything about nor limit anything but Infantry units. It is specific that Infantry have a max capacity of one. A max capacity is not listed for anything else. Assuming that means it is zero for anything else is exactly that, an assumption.

No, knowing that quote does not say that beasts may be embarked means they may not be embarked and as such the capacity of said transport to carry beasts is zero.
The permissive ruleset tells us this. So unless you can find something that says Beasts may be embarked upon a transport (Specific language is needed because transports are given permission to carry infantry, and there is no permission to carry anything else...)

Abandon wrote:You have yet to show this beast limit you keep talking about. It does not exist and permission to have them there has been shown over and over again.

Infantry embark - permitted
-then-
Infantry turn into beasts - permitted

They are allowed to turn into beasts while embarked. There it is. Permission for embarked beasts.

Find a shred of denial.

That is not how a permissive ruleset works.

That does not say beasts may be embarked so they can not be and the capacity of a transport to carry beasts is literally zero beast models.

There is a rule that says the unit type may change. This has nothing to do with beasts being allowed on a transport as it does not say they may be embarked because they can change at any time, not just when they are embarked. The transport capacity rules are more specific in this situation as they bar anything but infantry from being embarked.

Conclusion:
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.

Abandon wrote:From this page...

 DeathReaper wrote:

The permissive ruleset limits the number of models that may embark on a transport. A model may embark if there is a rule stating they may embark. Beasts have no such rule ans as per the permissive ruleset are not allowed on a transport.

Assuming honesty one can only conclude that you either do not have a grasp on the proper use of words and tensing to indicate a state vs an action or that you did not care to take the time to type in the extra words/letters despite the fact that it completely alters the statement. In any case what you claim to have been attempting to say was not communicated and something else was. Please do better next time as this makes people unsure that you know the meaning what you say. For now I will accept your proclaimed meaning as of a state, not an action.

Sure, I make one typo... look at all the other times when I wrote be embarked...

As noted here in these posts:

 DeathReaper wrote:
only infantry have permission to be embarked.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Therefore we may not have any Beasts embarked because the rules do not allow a transport to carry Beasts.

 DeathReaper wrote:
...However beasts may not be embarked...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Cite the rule that tells you that beasts can be embarked on a transport please...
...False. we do not have an allowance for beasts to be embarked as they exceed the transport capacity because they are not any rules stating beasts can be embarked. Without an allowance the number of beasts that may be embarked is zero.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have proven that it is illegal for them to be embarked however...
...The disembarking does break a rule, but then the game can continue as there is not an illegal unit embarked upon a transport that is can not be embarked upon anymore therefore the game can continue. Sounds like a good fix as there are not any units illegally embarked anymore.

P.S. it was a typo, sorry. (I made an additional typo in that post, i wrote ans instead of and. again sorry for the typo's).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and or any number of Independent Characters..." In the English language this does not say anything about nor limit anything but Infantry units. It is specific that Infantry have a max capacity of one. A max capacity is not listed for anything else. Assuming that means it is zero for anything else is exactly that, an assumption.

No, knowing that quote does not say that beasts may be embarked means they may not be embarked and as such the capacity of said transport to carry beasts is zero.
The permissive ruleset tells us this. So unless you can find something that says Beasts may be embarked upon a transport (Specific language is needed because transports are given permission to carry infantry, and there is no permission to carry anything else...)

You are misreading this. They tell you there's a max capacity that cannot be exceeded. They never assign a value(in units) to it, they just make it clear a single infantry unit fills it and no other unit types are mentioned. Without specific or general mention or some assigned or relative values, this cannot and does not say anything about anything other than infantry and as such no maximum capacity for anything else is set.

Also claiming that a unit of beasts is 'in excess' of a unit of infantry is pure assumption. The two cannot be compared as we are not given a means to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Abandon wrote:You have yet to show this beast limit you keep talking about. It does not exist and permission to have them there has been shown over and over again.

Infantry embark - permitted
-then-
Infantry turn into beasts - permitted

They are allowed to turn into beasts while embarked. There it is. Permission for embarked beasts.

Find a shred of denial.

That is not how a permissive ruleset works.

That does not say beasts may be embarked so they can not be and the capacity of a transport to carry beasts is literally zero beast models.

Actually, that is how it works and it does say that.
Again there is no such limit stated for beasts.

Incorrect Abandon, They do tell you there's a max capacity that cannot be exceeded. Beasts are not allowed by any rule to be embarked. therefore you may not have beasts embarked. The Permissive ruleset tells us this.

1 Beast model embarked is most definitely in excess of one infantry unit, as you may not have beasts embarked therefore if you were to have an infantry unit embarked the transport would then contain one beasts and one infantry unit and that is most definitely in excess of a single infantry unit as the transport would have a unit of beasts and a unit of infantry embarked. can never be exceeded means you can not have more than a single infantry unit embarked. if you have zero infantry embarked and a unit of anything else embarked it exceeds the capacity.

There is a limit for beasts. the limit is zero as we have no permission at all for beasts to be embarked. Therefore no beasts may be embarked. if you disagree please cite a rule allowing beasts to be embarked on a transport because I can not find one.

I see claims but no proof.

1 Beast model embarked is most definitely in excess of one infantry unit, as you may not have beasts embarked therefore if you were to have an infantry unit embarked the transport would then contain one beasts and one infantry unit and that is most definitely in excess of a single infantry unit as the transport would have a unit of beasys and a unit of infantry embarked.

This part makes no sense at all.

can never be exceeded means you can not have more than a single infantry unit embarked.

So prove that a unit of beasts is more than a single unit of infantry.

if you have zero infantry embarked and a unit of anything else embarked it exceeds the capacity.

How? True there's a capacity limit and one unit of infantry seems to fit in it. How can you use that to say anything about any other unit type without making grand assumptions? You can't. How many units of beasts equal a unit of infantry? We don't know and can't know. Does the single infantry unit take up the entire capacity limit or just 75%? We don't know and can't know.
It tells us there is a capacity limit and then give us permission to have a single infantry unit embarked. Trying to glean more is not possible by any logical means. We are not give numbers, ratios, scales or anything by which to compare. I understand what you see but your reading is intuitive, not logical. Intuition often tells you the intent and in this case that's clear but logic dictates you claims are full of assumption.

There is a limit for beasts. the limit is zero as we have no permission at all for beasts to be embarked. Therefore no beasts may be embarked. if you disagree please cite a rule allowing beasts to be embarked on a transport because I can not find one.

I have show such permission, you just refuse to see it. You are permitted to follow the rules to their natural conclusion or the game breaks completely at every step.

Infantry is permitted to imbark.
Embarked infantry is permitted to turn into beasts.
You now have legally and with permission reached a state of 'embarked beasts'.

Abandon, where precisely does it say that beasts can be embarked on a transport? Not inferring it from something else, but explicitly stating it?

 grrrfranky wrote:
Abandon, where precisely does it say that beasts can be embarked on a transport? Not inferring it from something else, but explicitly stating it?

No where. Where does it say Imperial Guard can shoot not inferring it from something else, but explicitly stating it?

You have permission to embark and you have permission to become beasts. You need denial of that permission that over rules the codex rule or you can do it.

IG are allowed to shoot like any other model of their type, for which there is permission. That's not a comparable situation. Beasts aren't allowed to be in the transport (which has a specific capacity of which beasts aren't a part), unlike infantry, which is the problem. As DeathReaper has stated several times, this is where RAW breaks down, so we need to houserule it to make it work. Whether that means they can stay in the transport or are forced to disembark is up t you and your group. I'd probably go with them having to disembark, but I don't have strong feelings either way, so would happily play it however my opponent wanted to in the event of this coming up.

So you can't produce a rule that explicitly states IG can shoot without inferring it from a list of permissions given? So if you believe that IG can shoot why do you not believe the beasts can be embarked? The rules certainly give you a list of permissions which creates that result.

That is how a permissive ruleset works. We have proven permission you need to show denial of that permission.

Why would I need to find a rule saying that IG in particular can shoot when a more general rule already gives me permission? The most general rule for transports says at a unit of infantry can be embarked, and says nothing about beasts. You need to find a more specific rule overriding or adding to that.

As for the beasts, while there is permission for them to embark as infantry, and to turn in to beasts, there still isn't a rule saying that any more than a single infantry unit plus any attached ICs can be embarked on a transport which would thus preclude a unit of beasts being embarked on at transport leading to a breakdown of the rules.

Why would I need to find a rule saying that IG in particular can shoot when a more general rule already gives me permission?

You wouldn't but you're claiming you need specific permission for everything and using the result of different rules isn't enough. So yes you have permission for infantry to shoot but none for Imperial Guard infantry.

The most general rule for transports says at a unit of infantry can be embarked, and says nothing about beasts. You need to find a more specific rule overriding or adding to that. 

Cool check the possessed rules in the Crimson Slaughter codex.

As for the beasts, while there is permission for them to embark as infantry, and to turn in to beasts, there still isn't a rule saying that any more than a single infantry unit plus any attached ICs can be embarked on a transport which would thus preclude a unit of beasts being embarked on at transport leading to a breakdown of the rules.

So lets assume for a second you are correct that the rules breakdown. What has caused the rule break down? Is it a codex rule creating a breakdown in a BrB rule? If so page 7 tells us how to deal with that. So no matter how you look at it the end result is the same they can be embarked.