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.

In the 'normal' deployment order, you place HS down first. Later you can place elites.

So an Eldar Player would place his Falcon down first. And later place Harlies.

According the the Book. When you are deploying, you may deploy 'into' a transport.

So, in a 'normal' game, you would deploy the falcon onto the table, and then later, never place the harlies on the table, and instead, just say they are in the falcon.
Also note, that according to the FAQ, being in a transport means you are not on the table, except for a few specific purposes. (shooting through fire slots)

Now, what happens in a mission where elites deploy before HS?

When you get to the Harlies, can you still say 'they deploy in the transport'? And then later deploy the falcon on the table?
Keeping in mind, that the deployment rules on p. 81 state that the harlies must be a valid passenger, but say nothing about the tranport having to be on the table when you declare the harlies are inside.

I'm afraid your out of luck. You must deploy units in the order that they are called upon. If the Harlies show up before their falcon they will just have to hang outside of it.

Its the same as escelation. Its just one of the hazzards of using your heavies for transports. Its one of the small advantages of dedicated transports.

Jayden63 wrote:I'm afraid your out of luck. You must deploy units in the order that they are called upon. If the Harlies show up before their falcon they will just have to hang outside of it.

Its the same as escelation. Its just one of the hazzards of using your heavies for transports. Its one of the small advantages of dedicated transports.

Why do they have to be deployed onto the table? I see nothing that says the transport has to be deployed onto the table before it is occupied. Can you quote a page etc to show how senile I am and that as well as losing my hair my mind is also degenerating?

I'm afraid your out of luck. You must deploy units in the order that they are called upon.

I agree, and I am deploying them. According to the deployment rules, they can be deployed inside a transport.

Except as already mentioned, you don't have a transport to deploy them in. You can't deploy them in a transport that's not on the board because that's not 'deploying' the squad and you can't wait until it does become available.

Show me in the rules where you can keep a unit out of the game when its supposed to be deployed. Its a permissive rule set. You can only do what the rules say you can do. When its time for your unit to be deployed it MUST be deployed onto the playing field. If there is no empty transport that you can deploy it into, then you have no choice but to put it onto the table in your deployment zone. Those are the breaks, anything else is cheating or a house rule.

Jayden63 wrote:Show me in the rules where you can keep a unit out of the game when its supposed to be deployed. Its a permissive rule set. You can only do what the rules say you can do. When its time for your unit to be deployed it MUST be deployed onto the playing field. If there is no empty transport that you can deploy it into, then you have no choice but to put it onto the table in your deployment zone. Those are the breaks, anything else is cheating or a house rule.

Actually the deployment rules are delightfully vague, and you are adding things to it that just aren't there. The first paragraph of the deployment rules deals with transports as part of the unit. The second paragraph deals with non-dedicated transports.

"when deploying a unit or independant character on the table, you may specify that it is being placed inside a transport vehicle, subject to them being valid as passangers (see vehicle rules)"

So where exactly does it say that said transport has to be on the table. If I am going to place a unit on of the table, I can decide at the time I am going to place them to put them in a non-dedicated transport vehicle. They are valid passangers - so other than an assumption what is your argument that the vehicle has to be on the table.

fullheadofhair wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:Show me in the rules where you can keep a unit out of the game when its supposed to be deployed. Its a permissive rule set. You can only do what the rules say you can do. When its time for your unit to be deployed it MUST be deployed onto the playing field. If there is no empty transport that you can deploy it into, then you have no choice but to put it onto the table in your deployment zone. Those are the breaks, anything else is cheating or a house rule.

Actually the deployment rules are delightfully vague, and you are adding things to it that just aren't there. The first paragraph of the deployment rules deals with transports as part of the unit. The second paragraph deals with non-dedicated transports.

"when deploying a unit or independant character on the table, you may specify that it is being placed inside a transport vehicle, subject to them being valid as passangers (see vehicle rules)"

But there is no transport for them to go into. That transport doesn't exist in anyway shape or form until it actually hits the table.

Also Vague deployment rules doesn't help you. Its been made quite clear that you take the interpitation that is least powerful when the rules are not crystal clear.

Anyway, fortunatly its a lot more simple than that.

When it is time for a unit to be deployed you have the option of deploying them into a transport vechile, or onto the table. Those are your only two options. The unit must at this time use one of those two options.

It is your job to show me in the rules where you can use a transport that is not already on the table. If (as you say) you deploy them into a transport that is not yet onto the table, your now deploying that unit out of turn and in truth when the transport does show up your now deploying two units at once. This is clearly against the rules when the deployment rules clearly have a you go I go system for deployment.

Jayden63 wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:Show me in the rules where you can keep a unit out of the game when its supposed to be deployed. Its a permissive rule set. You can only do what the rules say you can do. When its time for your unit to be deployed it MUST be deployed onto the playing field. If there is no empty transport that you can deploy it into, then you have no choice but to put it onto the table in your deployment zone. Those are the breaks, anything else is cheating or a house rule.

Actually the deployment rules are delightfully vague, and you are adding things to it that just aren't there. The first paragraph of the deployment rules deals with transports as part of the unit. The second paragraph deals with non-dedicated transports.

"when deploying a unit or independant character on the table, you may specify that it is being placed inside a transport vehicle, subject to them being valid as passangers (see vehicle rules)"

But there is no transport for them to go into. That transport doesn't exist in anyway shape or form until it actually hits the table.

Also Vague deployment rules doesn't help you. Its been made quite clear that you take the interpitation that is least powerful when the rules are not crystal clear.

Anyway, fortunatly its a lot more simple than that.

When it is time for a unit to be deployed you have the option of deploying them into a transport vechile, or onto the table. Those are your only two options. The unit must at this time use one of those two options.

It is your job to show me in the rules where you can use a transport that is not already on the table. If (as you say) you deploy them into a transport that is not yet onto the table, your now deploying that unit out of turn and in truth when the transport does show up your now deploying two units at once. This is clearly against the rules when the deployment rules clearly have a you go I go system for deployment.

Am I not using a permissive rule set by deciding I am deploying into a vehicle, per the rules - are you not adding an extra rule that isn't written. Anyway, the transport does exist, it says so on my army list.

BTW, the rules do not say "deploy them into a transport" it says "place inside". The rules specefically do not say deploy. I have placed them inside a vehicle, it is just said vehicle has been deployed yet.

So how do you deploy two units at once without breaking the rules?

Give it up dude, your just being difficult to be difficult. By your reasoning you can keep a foot unit off the table in escelation missions by placing them into the transport during deployment and then waiting for that to come in on reserves. Try that anywhere and you will be laughed out of the gaming shop.

Jayden63 wrote:So how do you deploy two units at once without breaking the rules?

Give it up dude, your just being difficult to be difficult. By your reasoning you can keep a foot unit off the table in escelation missions by placing them into the transport during deployment and then waiting for that to come in on reserves. Try that anywhere and you will be laughed out of the gaming shop.

Won't be trying it anywhere because it never applies to me - and that is a useless argument in a RAW discussion. Just disagree with you and would allow an opponent to do this. And yes, if a foot unit is eligible to go into a non dedicated transport why wouldn't it apply. And no, I am not deploying two units at once. The foot unit was placed inside the transport and then the transport was deployed.

when deploying a unit or independant character on the table

I think you answered your own question with the abovee quoted rule

Your deploying the unit onto the table, not into a transport still held in reserve off the table.

If your elites drop before your heavies in some special game scenerio and you want them to get a ride. deploy them, then deploy the heavy next to them behind cover. turn 1 load up and your good to go.

You can't deploy them in a transport that's not on the board because that's not 'deploying' the squad and you can't wait until it does become available.

So, can you give me a rules-definition of what it means to 'deploy' then?
Looking in the rules, under the 'Deploy Forces' heading seems like a good place to start.

It says that when you are deploying a unit, you can specify that it is being placed in a transport. Now, thanks to the FAQ, we know that models in a transport, are *not* on the table. So the rules are pretty clear, that the transport rule means they are not being placed on the table.
The rules say nothing, about the transport having to be on the table.
Can you show me where in the rules, placing a unit in a transport is not deploying it?

I think you answered your own question with the abovee quoted rule

Your deploying the unit onto the table, not into a transport still held in reserve off the table.

As I said above, even if the transport is already on the table, by placing them in the transport, you are already *not* deploying them on the table.

It is irrelevant anyway, because it is an 'instead' kind of situation. You are deploying the unit on the table, instead you specify they are being placed in a transport. Which is *not* the same as deploying on the table. (regardless of where the transport it.)

You are making up rules...

Show me in the rules where you can keep a unit out of the game when its supposed to be deployed. Its a permissive rule set.

I am not keeping it out of the game, I am specifiying that it is in a transport. The rules give me 'permission' to do so. You show me the rule that says I can only do that for transports on the table.

When its time for your unit to be deployed it MUST be deployed onto the playing field.

Unless another rule says you don't have to. (reserves, deepstrike, deploying into a transport.)
*any* time you deploy into a transport, you are *not* deploying onto the playing field. The FAQ if very clear on this.

That transport doesn't exist in anyway shape or form until it actually hits the table.

You made that up, or do you have a page quote for that.

When it is time for a unit to be deployed you have the option of deploying them into a transport vechile, or onto the table. Those are your only two options. The unit must at this time use one of those two options.

I agree, and the rules agree.

It is your job to show me in the rules where you can use a transport that is not already on the table

No it is not. I showed you where the rules say I can specify they go in a tranport. *you* are adding conditions, you need to show why it only includes certain transports.
Or what follows
You need to show me where it says it included dedicated transports.
You need to show me where it says it includes non-dedicated transports.
You need to show me where it says it includes skimmer transports
You need to show me where it says it includes tranports painted green.

As you said, it is permissive. It have permission. You want to curtail that permission, you need to find the rule that does so.

This is clearly against the rules when the deployment rules clearly have a you go I go system for deployment.

It stil does.
YOu deploy.
I deploy into a transport
You deploy
I deploy the transport.

So how do you deploy two units at once without breaking the rules?

Show me the rule that says deploying two units at once is breaking the rules. (hint: It never says that. You made that up.)

It is irrelavent, since I am following the rules. I am deploying the unit... into the transport. I am doing it because the rules say I can.

the RAW state that you are deploying to unit or IC to the table. it seems to me to be logical to take that to mean that if they are going to a transport the transport in question has to be on the table. even though the unit is not "on the table" your opponent knows where it is on the table itself (oh those harlies are in that falcon) any other interpretation strike me as neither valid nor fair.

Page 81 BGB is very clear. Coredump is just argueing to argue. His logic would never hold up at an RTT unless he were running it.

Darrian

OKay, folks... some thoughts and clarifications here.

40K is NOT... NOT... a "permissive" set of rules.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/permissive
Please read the definitions in the preceeding link before arguing that with me.

"Permissive" would mean that everything is allowed unless otherwise mentioned (which is what some people are trying to do).
The game is permission based.
There is a difference between "permission" and "permissive." A HUGE difference.

That being said,

As you said, it is permissive. It have permission. You want to curtail that permission, you need to find the rule that does so.

This defense just got shot out of the water.

Something else to keep in mind...

A Falcon, unless bought AS a transport for the unit (which is not possible), is NOT a transport vehicle. What it would be is a Heavy Support vehicle with transport capabilities. There is a VAST difference
Transport vehicles are purchased as dedicated transport for the unit they are transporting. Period. Want a transport vehicle? That is how you do it.

If it is NOT a transport vehicle, it is not a transport. There is no such thing as a "non-dedicated" transport vehicle.

Take the land raider, for example. Terminators may take one as a transport, or the player may take one as a heavy support choice. If it is purchased as a dedicated transport for the termies, then it is considered a transport vehicle for that unit. If it is bought as a Heavy Support choice, then it is a Heavy unit that has transport capabilities. Ergo, it is NOT a transport vehicle.

Where the rules say that you can deploy into a transport vehicle, show me where it says you can deploy into a tank OFF of the table, then later place that tank on the table
THAT is what you need to find. Not something that STOPS you from doing it, but something that gives you PERMISSION to.

Also, the rulebook does not give a definition for "deploy." Why? It presumes you understand the meaning of the word "deploy."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deploy

"Deploy" isn't a rule. It's a verb.
It's something you do during the deployment phase.

Also, I reiterate the note regarding ambiguity. You use the lesser of the "options."

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:
A Falcon, unless bought AS a transport for the unit (which is not possible), is NOT a transport vehicle. What it would be is a Heavy Support vehicle with transport capabilities. There is a VAST difference
Transport vehicles are purchased as dedicated transport for the unit they are transporting. Period. Want a transport vehicle? That is how you do it.

If it is NOT a transport vehicle, it is not a transport. There is no such thing as a "non-dedicated" transport vehicle.

Take the land raider, for example. Terminators may take one as a transport, or the player may take one as a heavy support choice. If it is purchased as a dedicated transport for the termies, then it is considered a transport vehicle for that unit. If it is bought as a Heavy Support choice, then it is a Heavy unit that has transport capabilities. Ergo, it is NOT a transport vehicle.


Eric

Strange argument. How does it relate to the discussion, I must be missing your point? If it isn't a transport vehicle, and the rules say "place inside a transport" (note they don't use the word "deploy") can you still place troops in said vehicle if it is on the table.

Also, the rule differentiates between a vehicle that is allocated to only one squad and one that isn't - hence the usage of dedicated and non dedicated.

The FAQ talks about placing characters or units inside vehicles that are off the board only when that vehicle becomes available as a reserve. This is indication enough that until the vehicle becomes available (i.e. on the board) Units cannot be placed in them.

fullheadofhair wrote:Strange argument. How does it relate to the discussion, I must be missing your point? If it isn't a transport vehicle, and the rules say "place inside a transport" (note they don't use the word "deploy") can you still place troops in said vehicle if it is on the table.

Also, the rule differentiates between a vehicle that is allocated to only one squad and one that isn't - hence the usage of dedicated and non dedicated.

Not so strange, if you go back and re-read the last "pro" post by coredump.

A large part of his logic is that the rules allow him to deploy into a transport (please, don't argue "place inside vs deploy," as you aren't actually placing the models inside the tank, either. It's a non-issue for the discussion, really). What you refer to in my post was showing that his tank is NOT a "transport" vehicle. rather, it is a Heavy Support vehicle with transport capacities. There is a difference.

Eric

/popcorn

Hilarious. Why isn't this thread locked yet?

I gotta agree with Stelek here. This thread is going nowhere, please lock it.

Darrian

We've seen far dumber arguments go on far longer.

I can see where fullheadofhair is coming from, even if I don't agree with him.

MagickalMemories wrote:OKay, folks... some thoughts and clarifications here.

40K is NOT... NOT... a "permissive" set of rules.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/permissive
Please read the definitions in the preceeding link before arguing that with me.

"Permissive" would mean that everything is allowed unless otherwise mentioned (which is what some people are trying to do).
The game is permission based.
There is a difference between "permission" and "permissive." A HUGE difference.

I'm not seeing the huge difference. Reading the linked definitions, what I do see is a great deal that directly counters your statement. Of the 6 entries listed for permissive, I saw this:

2. granting or denoting permission

1. Granting or inclined to grant permission . . .

2. granting or inclined or able to grant permission . . .

1. 1 : based on or having permission <permissive occupancy>
2 : granting permission or discretion . . .

Based on these entries, it seems right and proper to call the 40k rule-set permissive, as it is based on granting permission to play the game in a certain manner.

As for the argument at hand, I don't think it can be settled decisively either way. I'm inclined to go with fullheadofhair, though. I probably wouldn't get into an endless quibbling match at a tourney, but in the basement I'd allow it.

Wraith wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:OKay, folks... some thoughts and clarifications here.

40K is NOT... NOT... a "permissive" set of rules.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/permissive
Please read the definitions in the preceeding link before arguing that with me.

"Permissive" would mean that everything is allowed unless otherwise mentioned (which is what some people are trying to do).
The game is permission based.
There is a difference between "permission" and "permissive." A HUGE difference.

I'm not seeing the huge difference. Reading the linked definitions, what I do see is a great deal that directly counters your statement. Of the 6 entries listed for permissive, I saw this:

2. granting or denoting permission

1. Granting or inclined to grant permission . . .

2. granting or inclined or able to grant permission . . .

1. 1 : based on or having permission <permissive occupancy>
2 : granting permission or discretion . . .

Based on these entries, it seems right and proper to call the 40k rule-set permissive, as it is based on granting permission to play the game in a certain manner.

As for the argument at hand, I don't think it can be settled decisively either way. I'm inclined to go with fullheadofhair, though. I probably wouldn't get into an endless quibbling match at a tourney, but in the basement I'd allow it.

It's your misinterpretation of the meaning, I think, that keeps you from seeing the problem. "Permissive" means that it is automatically allowed until you are told otherwise.
"Permission" means that you need permission in order to do something.

A permissive game would allow me to give a lascannon to every one of my space marines because the rules don't say I CAN'T. The codex says I CAN give it to a certain number of models in a certain number of squads, but it doesn't say I CANNOT give it to all of my models. Therefore, I CAN give it to them all.

With the ruleset being permission based, it means that you can't do something until the rulebook or codex says otherwise.


All of the definitions that you quoted above support what I'm saying. Permissive means those things. Those things are NOT what 40K does. WH40K is restrictive, not permissive.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:OKay, folks... some thoughts and clarifications here.

40K is NOT... NOT... a "permissive" set of rules.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/permissive
Please read the definitions in the preceeding link before arguing that with me.

"Permissive" would mean that everything is allowed unless otherwise mentioned (which is what some people are trying to do).
The game is permission based.
There is a difference between "permission" and "permissive." A HUGE difference.

Read the second definition from the page that you linked to and you'll see that 40K is most definitely a permissive rules set. The rules set "... grants or denotes permission..." for you to do something. Without that permission, you can not do something.

Ghaz wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:OKay, folks... some thoughts and clarifications here.

40K is NOT... NOT... a "permissive" set of rules.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/permissive
Please read the definitions in the preceeding link before arguing that with me.

"Permissive" would mean that everything is allowed unless otherwise mentioned (which is what some people are trying to do).
The game is permission based.
There is a difference between "permission" and "permissive." A HUGE difference.

Read the second definition from the page that you linked to and you'll see that 40K is most definitely a permissive rules set. The rules set "... grants or denotes permission..." for you to do something. Without that permission, you can not do something.

Once again, this is a case of misunderstanding the meaning of the word.
Permissive, as I stated, is NOT the type of rules that 40K has. Permissive means you CAN do it until the rules say otherwise. Period.
"...Grants or denotes permission" means just that. It means that te rules AUTOMATICALLY "grant or denote permission." The rules are NOT permissive, as they only allow you to do what you are TOLD you can do. No more. Permissive means that you can do whatever you want unless stated otherwise.

The rules are restrictive. You have to RECEIVE permission to do something.
Check the specific meaning below, and you'll see that this is a better description of the 40K rules.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/restrictive


Are there any English or Language Arts teachers here who can explain this more clearly than I am? It just doesn't seem to be sinking in, the difference between permission and permissive.


Eric

I understand the word perfectly. It's you who's misunderstanding the meaning of the word. GW's rules are 'permissive' because the rules "... grant or denote permission...". You can even see it in the example given for the defintion:

a permissive nod

That is a nod that gives you permission to do something, just like the rules for 40K give you permission to do something. They are permissive rules. They give you permission to do something.

A 'restricitive' rules set would by defintion "... express or imply restrictions or limitations of application, as terms, expressions, etc...." That is not the way that 40K works.

fullheadofhair wrote:
"when deploying a unit or independant character on the table, you may specify that it is being placed inside a transport vehicle, subject to them being valid as passangers (see vehicle rules)"

So where exactly does it say that said transport has to be on the table. If I am going to place a unit on of the table, I can decide at the time I am going to place them to put them in a non-dedicated transport vehicle. They are valid passangers - so other than an assumption what is your argument that the vehicle has to be on the table.

Uh, well, it says nowhere that the transport has to be on the table. It does say, however, "when deploying a unit or independent character on the table..." (emphasis mine, the quote's yours as my book isn't with me). Now you explain to me how, if you plan to place that unit in a transport not on the tabletop, that this example you're giving actually counts as deploying said unit on the table, which by your quote is exactly how the rule is written.

Simply put, you're ignoring that part of the sentence because it isn't repeated in the second half relating to transports. The reason it isn't repeated that the transport must be on the table because it doesn't have to be, the sentence is structured so a) when deploying your unit or independent character onto the table you may b) specify that it is being placed inside a transport vehicle. Word for word. Now, if the sentence instead read "During deployment you may specify that a unit or independent character may be placed inside a transport vehicle..." then you'd have a much better argument, instead you're simply discounting what half of that sentence says. If we're making up rules then you're ignoring some.