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.

Where does it say in the rulebook that I can't have a unit embarked in a non-dedicated transport before deployement?

I ask b/c I would very much like be able to under certain circumstances have my pathfinders stuck in a falcon to confer the scout special move. I see the limitation of dedicated transports written as May only be deployed w/ the unit they were purchased with (and ICs) but could not find anything regarding non-dedicated transports.

You *can* have units embarked in non-dedicated transports before deployment.

What you can NOT do is have a dedicated transport, and have a unit in it prior to deployment other than the one for which it is dedicated.

Example 1:

Nobs make take a battlewagon as a dedicated transport. Prior to deployment, I may choose to have Nobs in the battlewagon, or I can choose to have nothing in the battlewagon. I may NOT put another unit in the battlewagon.

Example 2:

if I take a battlewagon as a heavy support choice and leave its transport capacity at 20, I may put any unit into the Battlewagon prior to deployment and bring them onto the field together.

Ok?

exactly what I was looking for, I was under the impression I couldn't do that for some reason.


Thanks Dash

-Scott

BBB, Pg 67, inset box has what you are looking for. The restrictions only apply to "Dedicated Transports" and not all vehicles.

However, deploying the pathfnders in a Falcon will not give the Falcon the Scout move as you are saying you wish to do. That will only work, as per the Scouts USR (pg 76), when deploying the unit in a dedicated transport.

Cheers mondo

Just to be technical....

There is no rule that lets you deploy your unit in a transport, unless it is dedicated to that unit. So, technically, you can't do it.

OTOH, it seems to be a very widespread way of playing it.

coredump, the rules are permissive.

Dashofpepper wrote:coredump, the rules are permissive.

Which means the rules have to permit you to do something if you want to do it.

Exactly. The only way a unit can begin the game deployed inside a transport is if the transport is dedicated.

There are no rules giving permission to deploy a unit in a non-dedicated transport. They can be held in reserves in the transport, but can not be deployed at the start inside it.

Democratus wrote:Exactly. The only way a unit can begin the game deployed inside a transport is if the transport is dedicated.

There are no rules giving permission to deploy a unit in a non-dedicated transport. They can be held in reserves in the transport, but can not be deployed at the start inside it.

How about a bunker or intact building?

Its completely fine to be deployed in a non-dedicated transport, as long as the transport vehicle is in your deployment zone you're perfectly entitled to deploy units inside it. In 5th edition units in transports are considered on the table remember.

There doesn't need to be a rule saying you specificly deploy units there any more than you need one with specific permission to deploy in a wood, or between some rocks, or in a building. The standard deployment rules work just fine, they're on the table in your deployment zone. Thats all it asks you do and you've done it.

Y'know.... I like that. It makes sense.

I have to agree. I think it's reasonable to claim that deploying a unit inside a transport within the deployment area is equivalent to deploying the unit within the deployment area.

You've convinced me.

Hymirl wrote:Its completely fine to be deployed in a non-dedicated transport, as long as the transport vehicle is in your deployment zone you're perfectly entitled to deploy units inside it. In 5th edition units in transports are considered on the table remember.

There doesn't need to be a rule saying you specificly deploy units there any more than you need one with specific permission to deploy in a wood, or between some rocks, or in a building. The standard deployment rules work just fine, they're on the table in your deployment zone. Thats all it asks you do and you've done it.

I agree that this makes sense and I saw something similiar to this posted in another thread (don't know if you were the poster or not).

However, does the specific mentioning about dedicated transports create a specific rule that over rides a general rule?

Just asking for asking sakes...

I do that alot...

imweasel wrote:I agree that this makes sense and I saw something similiar to this posted in another thread (don't know if you were the poster or not).

However, does the specific mentioning about dedicated transports create a specific rule that over rides a general rule?

Yes, the rule about dedicated transport is a modifcation to the normal dpeloyment rules to prevent deploying inside other unit's dedicated transports. As long as you're not breaking that rule anywhere in your deployment zone on the table is a legal space to deploy units in.

Just asking for asking sakes...

I do that alot...

Happy to help, I much prefer people ask when they don't know.. sadly lots of people prefer to make things up, which I don't like!

So, what about a building (not a ruin) in the deployment zone. Could you deploy 'embarked' in the bunker/building/etc.??

Ghaz wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:coredump, the rules are permissive.

Which means the rules have to permit you to do something if you want to do it.

No.

You have the right definition of the rules, but the wrong word to describe them.

Permissive, by definition, allows you to do whatever you want, unless otherwise restricted.
The word you are needing there is restrictive.

Some of the best examples:

permissive

adjective
1. not preventive [ant: preventative]
2. granting or inclined or able to grant permission; not strict in discipline; "direct primary legislation is largely permissive rather than prescriptive"; "permissive parents" [ant: unpermissive]

restrictive

adjective
1. tending or serving to restrict.
2. of the nature of a restriction.
3. expressing or implying restriction or limitation of application, as terms, expressions, etc.
4. Grammar. limiting the meaning of a modified element: a restrictive adjective.

Permissive parents, for example, tend to let their kids do anything they want. the only limitations are when they specifically say "You can't do that."

Restrictive parents, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. Their kids aren't allowed to do anything that they aren't specifically given permission to.


Not trying to be an @ss here... It's just that the word "permissive" is improperly used constantly on Dakka.

Eric

I prefer to say that the ruleset uses the closed world assumption.

It's more precise to say that anything that isn't true according to the rules is assumed to be false. It avoids that tangle that people often get into with assumed restrictions.

MagickalMemories wrote:

Ghaz wrote:Permissive, by definition, allows you to do whatever you want, unless otherwise restricted.

The word you are needing there is restrictive.

Some of the best examples:

permissive

adjective
1. not preventive [ant: preventative]
2. granting or inclined or able to grant permission; not strict in discipline; "direct primary legislation is largely permissive rather than prescriptive"; "permissive parents" [ant: unpermissive]

Permissive parents, for example, tend to let their kids do anything they want. the only limitations are when they specifically say "You can't do that."

Restrictive parents, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. Their kids aren't allowed to do anything that they aren't specifically given permission to.


Not trying to be an @ss here... It's just that the word "permissive" is improperly used constantly on Dakka.

"Permissive," in the context of a ruleset, uses the second definition. The example given in the definition is illustrative: permissive legislation tells you what you can do (i.e., what actions are permitted), as opposed to prescriptive legislation, which tells you what you cannot do (i.e., what actions are prescribed).

You example with parents, while an accurate usage of the adjectives, is inapplicable to the second definition of "permissive."

MM, with your definition, I can claim my units can tunnel 24" underground. After all, the rules don't say I can't.

Janthkin:

Funny. You correct my usage of the word, then contradict yourself.

YOU say that, in regards to rulesets, it uses the second definition:

"Permissive," in the context of a ruleset, uses the second definition. The example given in the definition is illustrative: permissive legislation tells you what you can do (i.e., what actions are permitted), as opposed to prescriptive legislation, which tells you what you cannot do (i.e., what actions are prescribed).

Yet, at the end of the second definition, it clearly indicates the example I used (permissive parents).

2. granting or inclined or able to grant permission; not strict in discipline; "direct primary legislation is largely permissive rather than prescriptive"; "permissive parents" [ant: unpermissive]

Coredump:

MM, with your definition, I can claim my units can tunnel 24" underground. After all, the rules don't say I can't

Please explain how I SPECIFICALLY stated that the rules are restrictive (you are NOT allowed to do something unless they say you can), yet you STILL managed to come to that conclusion.
---------------------------------------------

Permissive, by definition means you're allowed to do something unless told otherwise. Those who interpret definition 2 to be the opposite of that are not reading it correctly.
The point of definition 2 is that permissive "allows" or "can allow," compared to restrictive's "doesn't allow," as it is all in reference to permission without specification.

Permissive rules can or do allow actions without specification.

Restrictive rules do not allow actions without specification.

Eric

coredump wrote:MM, with your definition, I can claim my units can tunnel 24" underground. After all, the rules don't say I can't.

Yeah but I say you cant.

Also, see the following:

permissive:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/permissive

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

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:Janthkin:

Funny. You correct my usage of the word, then contradict yourself.

YOU say that, in regards to rulesets, it uses the second definition:

"Permissive," in the context of a ruleset, uses the second definition. The example given in the definition is illustrative: permissive legislation tells you what you can do (i.e., what actions are permitted), as opposed to prescriptive legislation, which tells you what you cannot do (i.e., what actions are prescribed).

Yet, at the end of the second definition, it clearly indicates the example I used (permissive parents).

It's not the term "permissive parents" that was incorrect; it was your interpretation of it.

"Permissive parents" are parents that grant or inclined or able to grant permission. Your interpretation, "let their kids do anything they want," is equivalent to parents who are not preventive (the first definition).

The rules are indeed permissive, using the first definition provided. They tell you what you are permitted to do and not what you are prevented from doing.

coredump wrote:So, what about a building (not a ruin) in the deployment zone. Could you deploy 'embarked' in the bunker/building/etc.??

I don't see why not...