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.

After searching through the rulebook, the only reference to deploying units in transports is on page 67 as "The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit was selected with (plus any independent characters)."

4th edition, page 81, says "When deploying a unit or independent character on the table, you may specify that it is being placed inside a transport vehicle, subject to them being valid as passengers (see Vehicle rules.)" That rule seems to have gotten lost in the conversion to 5th.

How are people handling this? Are you treating it as an oversight or adjusting to the new restriction?

Yeah, it's (IMO) an oversight.

Personally I'm glad it got left out because it provides a perfect example of why RAW isn't necessarily the best way to play the game. While it's a necessary foundation some people seem to cling to it like a child with a safety blanket.

I don't think its really needed, are they valid passengers? If so, stick 'em in.

As long as you don't break the restriction page 67 theres no problem is there?

Well, the rules provide no method for a unit to start in a non-dedicated transport. So there IS a problem. By RAW, you would have to start outside the transport and hop in during the movement phase of turn 1.

In 5E aren't all vehicles Taxi's? You deploy units any way you want to per the rules. If they have a dedicated transport they can start in it.

The only rule that makes it so your transport doesn't come with you is out-flanking.

solkan wrote:After searching through the rulebook, the only reference to deploying units in transports is on page 67 as "The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit was selected with (plus any independent characters)."

I think the fact you can is written above. Specifically specifying the difference been a dedicated and Non Dedicated is the fact that only the unit that brought the DT can be deployed in it.. therefore meaning its pretty much allows non dedicated transports to be boarded by any unit (following vehicle restrictions of course).

Mausama

MauleedlovesYakeface wrote:In 5E aren't all vehicles Taxi's? You deploy units any way you want to per the rules. If they have a dedicated transport they can start in it.

The only rule that makes it so your transport doesn't come with you is out-flanking.

Actually, a dedicated transport can indeed come with you when you outflank.......................

Mausama wrote:

solkan wrote:After searching through the rulebook, the only reference to deploying units in transports is on page 67 as "The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit was selected with (plus any independent characters)."

I think the fact you can is written above. Specifically specifying the difference been a dedicated and Non Dedicated is the fact that only the unit that brought the DT can be deployed in it.. therefore meaning its pretty much allows non dedicated transports to be boarded by any unit (following vehicle restrictions of course).

Mausama

Or....

It can mean that Dedicated Transports are allowed to start the game with troops embarked within - but non-dedicated transports can not. Since they provide no rules for begining the game inside a non-dedicated transport, it can't be done (except by House-Rule).

Democratus wrote:

Mausama wrote:

solkan wrote:After searching through the rulebook, the only reference to deploying units in transports is on page 67 as "The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit was selected with (plus any independent characters)."

I think the fact you can is written above. Specifically specifying the difference been a dedicated and Non Dedicated is the fact that only the unit that brought the DT can be deployed in it.. therefore meaning its pretty much allows non dedicated transports to be boarded by any unit (following vehicle restrictions of course).

Mausama

Or....

It can mean that Dedicated Transports are allowed to start the game with troops embarked within - but non-dedicated transports can not. Since they provide no rules for begining the game inside a non-dedicated transport, it can't be done (except by House-Rule).

No, this one is quite clear, the rule talks about one limitation to a dedicated transport, if you are talking about a limitation to 1 item out of a possible 2 items then the second item does not have that limitation. In other words, why even write the line "...only limitation of a dedicated transport" if it applies to all transports (dedicated and non-dedicated).

You see what I mean, the pure fact they put "dedicated transport" instead of just the word "transport" is very clear that it only applies to the dedicated version instead of the only other version of transport (non-dedicated).

padixon wrote:No, this one is quite clear, the rule talks about one limitation to a dedicated transport, if you are talking about a limitation to 1 item out of a possible 2 items then the second item does not have that limitation.

Not actually true.

If I tell you that you can't go into the lounge roon, that doesn't actually give you permission to go into any other room.

The rule you're referencing is a very good indication that other units are supposed to be able to start in non-dedicated transports, and I rather suspect that's the way that everyone will continue to play... but as it stands, there is simply no rule that actually allows it.

insaniak wrote:

padixon wrote:No, this one is quite clear, the rule talks about one limitation to a dedicated transport, if you are talking about a limitation to 1 item out of a possible 2 items then the second item does not have that limitation.

Not actually true.

If I tell you that you can't go into the lounge roon, that doesn't actually give you permission to go into any other room.

The rule you're referencing is a very good indication that other units are supposed to be able to start in non-dedicated transports, and I rather suspect that's the way that everyone will continue to play... but as it stands, there is simply no rule that actually allows it.

I 100% agree that there is no rule specifically stating that you can; however it is VERY much agreed it is implied or a oversight on GW's part.

Also, by your example.. If I was at someone's house, and they specifically said dont go into the KITCHEN... I would assume it would be ok for me to go into other area's of said house (the den, living room, dining room, etc?) Actually someones house is alittle more personal.. lol I sure enough wouldnt be rolling into someone's bedroom w/out permission.

But seriously, why would they point this out at all, if units were not allowed to deploy in transports?

To be honest.. if someone put up a SERIOUS argument regarding this.. I wouldn't play them. (not just simply checking the rules, but taking it much further).

Mausama

From what is in the rulebook:

We can only deploy units inside their own dedicated transports.

Turn one and onwards you can hop inside whatever you like.

If you are using reserves then "any transport vehicle" may carry any unit+IC inside it, ( though this is still restricted by the dedicated transports carrying only the unit they were bought for, or arriving empty ). pg 94 BGB.

As far as I can tell, nothing is said about deploying inside non dedicated transports aside from the point in the reserves rule.

This would make any unit without a transport vehicle 'dedicated' to carrying them around a little vulnerable when a battle starts, as they gather around other vehicles ready to embark ( EDIT: possibly drawing lots / rock paper scissors / having a race to see who gets which other vehicle with transport capacity )

So. Very. Stupid.

It doesn't say "We can only deploy units inside their own dedicated transports."

It says that only the dedicated unit may deploy inside a dedicated transport. This is to stop things like berzerkers starting inside a terminator squad's dedicated transport.

Of course you can deploy anything you want in a non dedicated transport. To say otherwise, cloaked in some RAW BS or not, is totally off base.

biztheclown wrote:Of course you can deploy anything you want in a non dedicated transport. To say otherwise, cloaked in some RAW BS or not, is totally off base.

It's not 'cloaked' in anything.

The rules tell us what we can do in the game. Anything that the rules don't tell us we can do, we can't.

So as far as the rules are concerned, units can not be deployed into transports, and pointing that out in a rules discussion is not 'totally off base' at all. It's exactly what should happen in a discussion of the rules.

Whether or not people actually play that way is a completely seperate issue to what the rules say. I pointed out that I doubt people will actually play by RAW in this instance... but that has no bearing whatsoever on what the rules actually say.

If you find discussing the rules so ridiculous, maybe YMDC just isn't the place for you...

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The PotMS rule is crystal clear about what it says you *can* do: fire an extra weapon when moving or Stunned / Shaken.

Well, no... it lists a couple of things that the PotMS can do... it doesn't restrict the 'can fire one more weapon' to only those specific situations. That would require the rules to actually say that the PotMS allows the vehicle to fire an extra weapon in those specific situations rather than the blanket 'can fire one more weapon' that it actually has.

While I'm inclined to agree that your interpretation is what was intended, the rules as presented can be read either way. I don't agree that the PotMS rule is as clear as you think.

This is from your argument in PotMS w/smoke launcher

Then you say

The rules tell us what we can do in the game. Anything that the rules don't tell us we can do, we can't.

during the forum discussion about dedicated transports

I hate to point this out to you brother, but where exactly do you stand on the issue of whether the rulebook/codex is permissive or restrictive. You clearly say that in one instance in another forum on another topic that a rule that gives you exactly what you *can* do is not restrictive, then in the next instance you claim that if it doesn't say you can then you can't.

You believe its either one way or the other, not both.

Edited: thanks for pointing out my error insaniak Fixed

padixon wrote: You clearly say that in one instance in another forum on another topic that a rule that gives you exactly what you *can* do, then in the next instance you claim that if it doesn't say you can then you can't.

You know that's the same thing, right?

insaniak wrote:The rules tell us what we can do in the game. Anything that the rules don't tell us we can do, we can't.

I think this is yet another case of people demanding an exact wording in order to be satisfied.

Basically there are rules saying you can deploy units in your deployment zone.
There are rules saying you can put units in transports.

Thats all the permission you need, so wheres the problem? Demanding a specific sentence saying "units may be deployed in a transport" isn't a failure of the rules, its a failure of understanding how the rules work. You don't need a specific rule saying you can deploy units in cover, or on a hill, or behind a building? Its exactly the same.

To the best of my knowledge, if something is bought as a dedicated transport, you must place that unit into it at the start of the game. Then, for everything that is not the bleeding Chimera, you can have them disembark and put other units eligible to ride into the transport. It generates an additional kill point, and it does not take its own slot on the force org chart.

If you purchase something that takes up its own slot on the force org chart - for example, a Land Raider - that starts on the board, you can put whatever will fit into it so long as it starts in it at the beginning of the game.

If you purchase something that takes up its own slot on the force org chart - again, a Land Raider - that is not a dedicated transport and starts in strategic reserve, units may accompany it from strategic reserve if they enter on the same turn. You can't plunk a squad of Terminators into a Land Raider and say that they come in together, as they weren't purchased together.

Then again, my army's single transport is the only one which is dedicated to the unit that it was purchased with, and only to the one it was purchased with, so I'll admit my handle on the rules may be a little shaky.

If something is purchased as a dedicated transport, it has two options available:

The unit it was purchased for may begin the game embarked in it, or it may be deployed empty.

There is no rule that actually states you're allowed to deploy squads inside non-dedicated transports at the start of the game. To me, this is an obvious oversight, and I allow my opponents to do so if they wish.

However if I ran across someone who insisted I was not allowed to do so myself, then I would not because, RAW, they are correct.

Transport Vehicles, p.67 wrote:The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit is was selected with (plus any independent characters).

Now the rules only give permission for what can be done in the game, else they would be infinite in length in order to cover what cannot be done in the game.

Moreover, the rules not only give explicit permissions, they also give implicit permissions, else no Space Marine model would be able to move: the rules for movement only say how far Infantry models can move, and an inference must be made that since a Space Marine is an infantry model, that it can move 6".

Likewise this is in the interests of brevity, else each model and each unit in the game would require a rulebook of the same size as the single rulebook for the 5th edition that we have now. But instead, in the interests of brevity, GW depends on our ability to make inferences from the general to the particular.

In this case the rule explicitly mentions an exception to the general case, that the only difference between a dedicated transport vehicle and a transport vehicle is that the former can only have the unit which it is the dedicated transport option for embarked upon deployment.

Since that is the only difference, then the only logical inference (via the logical rule known as the Disjunctive Syllogism, among other things) is that, pending other restrictions, any unit can be deployed embarked upon a transport vehicle.

Hymirl wrote:I think this is yet another case of people demanding an exact wording in order to be satisfied.

Well, yes, of course it is.

Thats all the permission you need, so wheres the problem?

The 'problem' is that it's only permission by inference.

Being able to deploy onto the table is not the same as being able to embark on a transport.

Yes, we can all agree that it should be allowed, and that's the way most if not all people will play it. But it's not actually specifically allowed by the rules.

You don't need a specific rule saying you can deploy units in cover, or on a hill, or behind a building? Its exactly the same.

It's not the same at all. Those three things you mentioned all still involve actually deploying the model. Embarking into a vehicle is a completely different game mechanic. Being allowed to deploy a model on the table is not the same as being able to embark a model onto a vehicle, because embarking is given a specific set of rules that govern how it works and when you can do it.

insaniak wrote:The 'problem' is that it's only permission by inference.

The unit fits and its in my deployment zone, thats all the relevent rules there are, and the only ones I need.

Being able to deploy onto the table is not the same as being able to embark on a transport.

No it isn't, one of those is an action performed in the movement phase. However if we stay on topic you'll note that I am saying being able to deploy onto the table is the same as being able to deploy in a transport.

It's not the same at all. Those three things you mentioned all still involve actually deploying the model. Embarking into a vehicle is a completely different game mechanic. Being allowed to deploy a model on the table is not the same as being able to embark a model onto a vehicle, because embarking is given a specific set of rules that govern how it works and when you can do it.

And which rule exactly requires you to actually deploy the model on the table? From where I'm sitting it looks like you want some special exception to a restriction that doesn't exist.

Again you're talking about Embarking, the unit isn't embarking it can't do that because that can only be done in a movement phase and this isn't it. The rule needed here is only the second paragraph of "Transport Capacity" which states what the vehicle can carry. Again the unit is not embarking as part of deployment, it is not moving to within 2" of the doors or using any other aspect of the rules for embarkation.

Hymirl wrote:And which rule exactly requires you to actually deploy the model on the table?

Actually, that's a very good point. After another look through the deployment rules, nowhere do they actually define deployment as placing a model on the table (although the inverse is generally true). They simply refer to deploying the unit into a given area.

So I might have to flip-flop slightly on this one. It doesn't change what I think was intended, since I already thought it should be allowed anyway... but it does leave the ability to deploy into a transport as technically allowed, just not particularly clearly spelt out by the rules.

Works for me!

One consistent feature of the 5th ed rules is the concept that models in a transport are still on the table if that transport is on the table. As shown in the rules for measuring special rules for embarked models and for holding objectives (to the hull of the transport in both cases). This is consistent with that. If the transport is in the DZ, then deploying a unit into it is still deploying said unit into the DZ.

The rules are restrictive.
They do not say you can embark on a dedicated transport that belongs to a different unit, so you cannot. In fact (and I don't have my BGB handy), I seem to recally specific wording in the BGB somewhere that supports me in that. I'll have to look it up after I get home.

I do NOT believe that the writers intended you to be allowed to embark on a Ded. Trans. for another unit. Otherwise, they might as well give THAT unit its' own transport.
Part of the penalty (maybe the ONLY one) for using another unit's Ded.Trans. is the requirement to start disembarked, IMO.


Eric

Eric, did you just miss the point of the whole thread? Doesn’t page 94 cover the issue you’re talking about?

Hymirl wrote:

The unit fits and its in my deployment zone, thats all the relevent rules there are, and the only ones I need.

Bingo. You can deploy anywhere in your deployment zone, whether that be in cover, in a building, or in a transport within the transports stated limitations. The only arguement I can see against this would be during the deployment where you put two troops and one HQ choice out first, you wouldn't be able to start in a non-dedicated transport with one of the troops you place initially as the transport wouldn't be allowed on the table until after the troops were placed.

Let me guess, the people arguing against this play Necrons?

Thalor

Mannahnin wrote:Eric, did you just miss the point of the whole thread? Doesn’t page 94 cover the issue you’re talking about?

LOL

Maybe I did.
It seemed to me that he's talking about putting an IC in a vehicle that it was not its vehicle.
Did I miss some inferrence?

Pg 94 COULD be it. I don't have the BGB here.

Eric

Thalor wrote:Let me guess, the people arguing against this play Necrons?

The 'people' arguing against this is pretty much just me... and I said from the start that I played it the same as everyone else, and just agreed in my last post that I was wrong on the RAW angle anyway.