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.

Gravmyr wrote:

As you can see there is no point where they embark it even specifically states they are deployed embarked. If they had said you embark said units before deployment that would be different as you would be embarking and would have to follow such rules.

By definition, "embarked" means one has been "embarking" at some point. At least, so far this has not been disproved other than "because I say so"?

Can we define this Reserves declaration a voluntary action on the part of the models, and therefore restricted during deployment? If so, how?

You deploy in terrain, there is no such thing as dangerous terrain. For one unit, it might be dangerous, for another, difficult. I'll also say it again, dangerous terrain is an in-game feature and has no bearing on a pre-game issue.

There is no RAW supporting your stance. To be embarked you must have been embarking. All the rules in the rulebook refer to embarked passengers, which follow Embarking rules, or they're not actually embarked.

I've never said you can be embarked while not embarking, that is your stance. My stance is the exact opposite and doesn't rely on trying to get around past and present tense.

But you know, I'm tired of this. If you want to play it as yes they can, by all means do so, but remember that is a house rule and not RAW.

Wow, seriously, this is still a discussion? You can not put a unit inside a transport without embarking, no matter if it is during deployment or otherwise. In my 10 years of playing tournaments I have never met anyone trying to argue this case.

But by all means, play it that way, I'm sure it's fun not being able to hurt that chapter master with his 1+ FnP that he cannot fail. Warhammer rules always demanded some common sense to smooth out the inconsistencies found when rules lawyering, luckily most people are reasonable.

A vehicle is an in game feature as is embarking..... and anything else that has a rule including the models. There is no RAW to support that the only way to be embarked in to have embarked. There are rules on how to embark as well as how to be deployed embarked, that is the difference. So again how do we get into terrain without entering it? It is the same logic you are using to be in something you must have entered it, by definition. Please explain to me why you would hold the models to embarking during deployment but not entering.

You are making a claim not backed up by the rules, unless the rule actively spell it out it doesn't exist just like fuel and ammo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes reasonable like saying the unit can ride in their DT...

Yes reasonable like saying the unit can ride in their DT...

I don't see why this is so terribly illogical. It's an option to get an additional flyer, take it or leave it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, would you also find it reasonable if my command squad on bikes deployed in their drop pod?

There are no rules, because the past and present tense don't require it. That's why I hold them to embarking rules.

You're on ignore because there is simply no way to convince you from your illogical stance.

Gravmyr wrote:
A
Yes reasonable like saying the unit can ride in their DT...

Like a 20 man Crusader squad in their Dedicated Razorback?

Does the transport capacity which is different from embarking rules fit them in? Is so yes.

I still see no answer to my question about terrain even though it is designated before deployment. I have to assume then that you have no problem separating entering from being in which is the difference of tense for a location but you do when people separate tense for vehicles.....

What's your problem with terrain? Are you suggesting that things should take a dangerous terrain check when deploying into terrain?

Also, you really think it's ok to deploy bikes in a drop pod?

If you want to know my reasoning as to why I think you can deploy into a transport as opposed to embark into said transport look at your vacations. How long does it take you to pack for it with all the bits and pieces you take with you? Now once onsite and the stuff is out there and you have to use your vehicle do you have everything repacked to go from the campsite to the lake to fish, how about from the campsite to the start of the hiking trail? Can you jump in and out of a transport in full gear and get everything packed away safely between in short jumps? This is what you are doing in the field, while wearing full gear and being shot at, getting out and shooting then being able to embark back into the transport for a short move and a disembarkation. You don't have the time to arrange everything like you would while awaiting the beginning of the battle or enroute to said battle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I answered both of those questions above.

And I'm saying you can't because your jump packs don't fit through the door. o0

Gravmyr wrote:
Do you require units that start in dangerous terrain to take dangerous terrain tests?

I'll make it easy for you:

pg 108
Dangerous Terrain
"in addition, each model must take a Dangerous Terrain test as soon as it enters, leaves or moves within dangerous terrain."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also there is no door, we beam our troops onto the field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no I'm not saying you should have to take DT tests I'm pointing out that not separating tenses causes you to do so. You cannot be in terrain without entering it so by the rules you have to if we do not separate the tenses.

Charistoph wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
A
Yes reasonable like saying the unit can ride in their DT...

Like a 20 man Crusader squad in their Dedicated Razorback?

or my 50 man blob squad going in their 5 chimeras...

or my 9 man blood claws with terminator leader going in their drop pod...


RAW is clear, some people just dont like it cause they want to put jet pack units in a transport despite being not allowed to do so by RAW, RAI, and common sense.

Wow... still slugging it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nothing resides within the Scythe - they are beamed down.

The RAI argument is that every unit that can take a DT, has the ability to be deployed in that DT with certain loadouts. Obviously if you purchase a 10 man unit of Marines, they can't all fit into a Razerback, but a 5 man unit can.

With Praetorians, there are exactly 0 ways for you to outfit the unit to allow them to fit into their transport with the proposed rules interpretation. So it's reasonable to assume that the writers intended for Praetorians to enter their DT but failed to write in the necessary rules to do so. There's still value in taking a Night Scythe with the Praetorians but it seems odd that they would have the option if they can never enter it, no matter what options you take for the unit.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow... still slugging it out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nothing resides within the Scythe - they are beamed down.

And if that was the actual rule, it would be no problem. The Transport Capacity of the Scythe doesn't actually state that. The Invasion Beams only deal with disembarking and the Wrecking/Crashing of the Flyer.

How about anyone else at all do your propose separating the tenses for dangerous terrain or not and what makes it different?

Ushtarador wrote:
Wow, seriously, this is still a discussion? You can not put a unit inside a transport without embarking, no matter if it is during deployment or otherwise. In my 10 years of playing tournaments I have never met anyone trying to argue this case.

But by all means, play it that way, I'm sure it's fun not being able to hurt that chapter master with his 1+ FnP that he cannot fail. Warhammer rules always demanded some common sense to smooth out the inconsistencies found when rules lawyering, luckily most people are reasonable.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that anyone should play the rules in such a way. However, whenever a counter argument to "to be embarked means you performed an embarking" is presented by applying the rules and argument directly to another case, it is not addressed by using the rules and and instead debated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or, you are involutarily embarking as a result of being deployed. You havent addressed that at all

You still cannot provide rules support that a Jump Unit may be Carried either. That continually gets han dwaved, so often that the only assumption that is left is that it cannot be countered.

thus, the only final argument that can possibly be made by the "Jump Infantry can be carried" side, is that it is a dedicated traansport, and the oft-quoted context removed rule that the "only" limitation is the ones given. Of course, that ignores how the rule is contrsucted and presented, and has also been debunked

In short, RAW AND RAI Jump Infatry dont get to be embarked / embarking / carried UNLESS the vehicle SPECIFICALLY allows it.

The NIght scythe does not do so. Case proven.

Any actions that you can choose for a model is an action by a model, unless you can prove that pieces of plastic have a will and choice. For an action to be voluntary, you need to have at least two choices and pick one of them by choice. Thus by that argument, you cannot voluntarily be embarked in reserves.

Nor have you shown in the rules, by your argument, how a Jump Monstrous Creature can be affected by Monster Hunter, or provided an explicit restriction from Jump Infantry being carried, instead of jump embarking.

That is ancillary to the debate here

Prove a Jump Unit can be carried. Page and graph. No more hand waving. Specific permission.

Except it's not it goes to prove that the logic is flawed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are not allowed to voluntarily embark

Please define the rules for embarking in gemeral, not the specific subset of "voluntary" embarkation

Rule for "Embark" :

Embarking. A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase - Difficult and Dangerous Terrain test should be taken as normal. The whole unit mst be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks. remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. if the platers need to measure a range in volving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

embarking as defined in the rule book is that quote (there is some more but only talks about movement restrictions that don't apply to the conversation at hand) The rule for embarking and disembarking says

"Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase. They cannot voluntarily embark and disembark in the same turn. However, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed.

Lets replace the word embark with what the rule is (it will sound kinds redundant but still makes sense) "Models can only voluntarily embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase or disembark in the Movement phase."

Under combined reserve units "Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together."

Now lets try to put the embark rule in there like we did with voluntarily embarking "Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together."

Problems with this new sentence is that it can't happen because no movement phase has happened and can't happen so being embarked(carried) and embark(the rule) are two different things.


If you are simply declared to be embarked that does not mean you did the embarking(rule) in game terms you are just being carried by the transport. It doesn't make much sense in real life terms because they normally go hand in hand (unless someone builds a boat around you that is one way i can think of IRL of being embarked without embarking? but that's a long wait) but in game terms units can be inside vehicles without going through the embarking rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is ancillary to the debate here

Prove a Jump Unit can be carried. Page and graph. No more hand waving. Specific permission.

Would you agree that the Monster Hunter rule applies against a Jump Monstrous Creature and Gargantuan creatures (both the flying and non-flying types)?

Charistoph wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow... still slugging it out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nothing resides within the Scythe - they are beamed down.

And if that was the actual rule, it would be no problem. The Transport Capacity of the Scythe doesn't actually state that. The Invasion Beams only deal with disembarking and the Wrecking/Crashing of the Flyer.

That is how it worked in the last edition. There is no reason why it shouldn't work that way this edition... no reason at all .

Nilok wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:
Wow, seriously, this is still a discussion? You can not put a unit inside a transport without embarking, no matter if it is during deployment or otherwise. In my 10 years of playing tournaments I have never met anyone trying to argue this case.

But by all means, play it that way, I'm sure it's fun not being able to hurt that chapter master with his 1+ FnP that he cannot fail. Warhammer rules always demanded some common sense to smooth out the inconsistencies found when rules lawyering, luckily most people are reasonable.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that anyone should play the rules in such a way. However, whenever a counter argument to "to be embarked means you performed an embarking" is presented by applying the rules and argument directly to another case, it is not addressed by using the rules and and instead debated.

Interesting you say that, because the case for the separation of embarked from embarking has been performed just as equally, and without some of the other advantages the rules of language provide.

At most, the concept of allowing embarked means you performed an embarking only requires the handwaving of timing, which we've seen GW do for other rules to bypass Deep Strike's timings for certain cases.

There are others who are trying to handwave many of the rules of language in order to allow one unit to catch a ride they used to be able to take.

Any actions that you can choose for a model is an action by a model, unless you can prove that pieces of plastic have a will and choice. For an action to be voluntary, you need to have at least two choices and pick one of them by choice. Thus by that argument, you cannot voluntarily be embarked in reserves.

First you complain about people not addressing the rules and just debating, and then you do the same thing right after that.

Where does it define voluntary actions of a model being what the player chooses?

Gravmyr wrote:
Except it's not it goes to prove that the logic is flawed.

Wrong. It proves nothing

Again. Jump units. Prove they may be carried. Page and graph. Tenth time of asking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Except it's not it goes to prove that the logic is flawed.

Wrong. It proves nothing

Again. Jump units. Prove they may be carried. Page and graph. Tenth time of asking.

I'll answer your question if you answer mine in my last post. My answer relies on your answer.

Oberron, yes, Monster Hunter works against Flying Monstrous Creatures, Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures. Why? Because the first rule for all three says "This is a Monstrous Creature with additional rules."

Now will you please answer mine, and nos' question.

Please show permission (page and paragraph) that allow Jump units (not Jump Infantry, Jump UNITS) to be carried.

 Happyjew wrote:
Oberron, yes, Monster Hunter works against Flying Monstrous Creatures, Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures. Why? Because the first rule for all three says "This is a Monstrous Creature with additional rules."

Now will you please answer mine, and nos' question.

Please show permission (page and paragraph) that allow Jump units (not Jump Infantry, Jump UNITS) to be carried.

I noticed that you did not say that Monster Hunter works again Jump Monstrous Creatures, could you clarify the use of Monster Hunter on Jump Monstrous Creatures first?


For Jump units with no base types they can not be carried by a Transport because the rule says

"A Transport can carry a single Infatry 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."

and Jump units with no base types are not Infantry, now a Jump Unit with a base type (MC, Infantry and the like) is different then a Jump Unit with no base type.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Except it's not it goes to prove that the logic is flawed.

Wrong. It proves nothing

Enough with the single line response back up your statements. I notice you try to just make statements and barely if ever actually present any evidence or actually enter into a debate. Say something of worth or don't bother speaking, that's the basis of debate and I believe the ideology behind the tenets of this forum. If you believe that it is different put forth why.

Gravmyr wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
The rules state that a unit within 2" can embark. It does not state this as a requirement. The Reserves rules actually state that a unit can start embarked a transport, without being within 2" during the Movement Phase.

BRB wrote:The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside.

That reads as a requirement to me, that a must not a can.

Charistoph's contention is that you do not have to be in the movement phase to embark. He explains the rules provide permission to embark during the movement phase by being within 2" of an access point but do not create a restriction that would prevent a permission to embark during deployment. Your post failed to address a single thing in Charistoph comment. It failed to show how permission to begin the game embarked in a transport in equivalent to emabrking during deployment. I failed to show that the 2" range requirement applied to a permission to embark other then the one given within the movement phase.

Gravmyr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Still don't know what your getting at. In th 5th edition codex an overlord could take a fast open-topped, skimmer DT that had a single IC transport capacity. The CCB and the overlord were two different units. The IC rule was not removed because the overlord was a passenger and the IC was not joining the CCB's unit. The 7th edition codex is very different and has no IC rule on the chariot. In either case an overlord on a chariot never had permission to join another unit.

Which tells me you are not reading what I wrote but stopping when you think you understand. In 6th they changed chariots to their own type they did not remove IC at the point so it would have had IC and been a chariot not embarked.

Ok, I looked up the FAQ for the old necron codex. You are right. The old units violated the RAW if used as described. The overlord could not embark on the CCB as it was not a transport any more and could not join it because it was a vehicle. Technically the CCB was a defunct unit. It lacked the second profile required by the 7th edition BRB... Thats probably why they changed them in the new codex. I'm not sure how it would have worked in 6th, I don't have my 6th edition BRB any more, but its also not relevant.

Gravmyr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Being embarked and being treated like you are embarked would be different things. You treat something as X being true only when X is not true but you want things to behave as if it were. Also, not relevant because we are never told to treat the passengers of a night scythe as anything. In this case the only way be can behave if X is true, is for X to actually be true. In this case X is the unit is embarked.

Which it does not say which all of you are stating, that they embark. Where in the deployment rule does it say they are embarked? Remember that no matter what logic says you need a rule to say it. To shoot a weapon I need to have it loaded, logically. Where in the rules does it say the weapons are loaded? The rules do not in fact have to make sense

Not the same thing. loading a weapon and shooting a weapon are not different tense of each other. When the rules described a unit that is embarked they are also be describing a unit that was embarking because that's how present and past tense langue works.

Gravmyr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The white shirt scenario makes no sense. If you can't put on a white shirt you can't walk into a room wearing a white shirt without first having put it on. What your suggesting is that the rules changed to disallow an event after the event has taken place. That's not the case here.

Another point where you did not read what I wrote. Let me spell it out again. You come in wearing a shirt you are told you cannot put it on, read voluntary embarkation. Where does it say you have to take it off, leave the transport? In this case getting the shirt on you does not have to be done by you, deployed on the transport.

"You come in wearing a shirt" presumes that wearing a shirt is a possibility. If we read that as voluntary embarkation then jump units can't wear shirts. Its not possible. They will never come in wearing one because its not possible. The scenario where some one is doing something impossible, and are then told its impossible is absurd.

Here are some immutable facts to remember.
1) You cannot be embarked with out embarking.
2) You cannot disembark with out being embarked.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
The rules state that a unit within 2" can embark. It does not state this as a requirement. The Reserves rules actually state that a unit can start embarked a transport, without being within 2" during the Movement Phase.

BRB wrote:The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside.

That reads as a requirement to me, that a must not a can.

Charistoph's contention is that you do not have to be in the movement phase to embark. He explains the rules provide permission to embark during the movement phase by being within 2" of an access point but do not create a restriction that would prevent a permission to embark during deployment. Your post failed to address a single thing in Charistoph comment. It failed to show how permission to begin the game embarked in a transport in equivalent to emabrking during deployment. I failed to show that the 2" range requirement applied to a permission to embark other then the one given within the movement phase.

Here are some immutable facts to remember.
1) You cannot be embarked with out embarking.
2) You cannot disembark with out being embarked.

EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING wrote:Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase.

The first 'immutable' you gave is incorrect, as has been shown throughout this line of reasoning, both in a permissive rule set and the real world. You, or an object, can be embarked without ever embarking.

In actuality, if you have a choice, you may never embark or disembark outside the Movement phase.
Your argument also disallows any model that starts deployed 'inside' Transports or is declared embarked, unless you are forced by a rule to have the model to embark in reserves, from being able to disembark.