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.

Stapling bits of rules together will always produce weird outcomes. Stick to "three Tallarn units" as the rules for this Stratagem require and there's no stapling required.

But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...

I know I'm late, but I just can't see how this wouldn't be allowed. You choose which units are embarked on a transport when you set it up. It doesn't say anything about where you set up the transport, and neither do any of the transport datasheets I've seen, so why would it matter where it's set up?

You're not ambushing with ogryns, just like you're not moving ogryns when you move a transport with them in it. You're ambushing with a transport. Embarked units aren't treated as being on the board when their transport is, so why would they be treated as being in ambush just because their transport is?

The Cloudstrike wording makes things more confusing as to the RAI. Did they intend for the stratagems to work differently for transports, or were they just being more specific when they wrote Cloudstrike? Who knows, except the rules writers?

In any case, they should FAQ this. Whatever their intention was, there are clearly lots of people who don't read it their way.

I agree with BCB on the RAW of the stratagem. But I think its probably not the RAI. They definitely need to FAQ it.

If it was up to me, the transported units wouldn't count for quantity, but should have to be Tallarn.

tneva82 wrote:
But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...

The issue is that "it isnt explicitly stated as true, therefore it mus be false," which is a logical fallacy.

"Ambush doesn't state that you cannot do as such, therefore it must be allowed to do so." is the core of the argument.

 skchsan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...

The issue is that "it isnt explicitly stated as true, therefore it mus be false," which is a logical fallacy.

"Ambush doesn't state that you cannot do as such, therefore it must be allowed to do so." is the core of the argument.

Actually, the core of the argument is "Ambush doesn't say anything one way or another, therefore, it is inapplicable to the question."

Saying "can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" can be shortened to "can ogryns be deployed in a transport?" because Ambush doesn't speak on the point, so can be disregarded as irrelevant when investigating either a positive or negative answer.

The answer to this Occam's Razor version of the question is obviously yes.

It's like asking "can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in the right side of my Deployment Zone?". Well, the Deployment Zone rules don't specifically address this one way or another, so you can safely simply ask "can Ogryns be deployed in a transport?" and the answer is, as mentioned, covered in the transport rules: yes.

 skchsan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...

The issue is that "it isnt explicitly stated as true, therefore it mus be false," which is a logical fallacy.

"Ambush doesn't state that you cannot do as such, therefore it must be allowed to do so." is the core of the argument.

Not really. The Ogryns have explicit permission to embark and no restriction is the core of the argument. I even presented the argument as a formal syllogism earlier in the thread, making it clear there are no fallacies. Feel free to point out the fallacious step if there is one, but don't straw man the argument please.

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...

The issue is that "it isnt explicitly stated as true, therefore it mus be false," which is a logical fallacy.

"Ambush doesn't state that you cannot do as such, therefore it must be allowed to do so." is the core of the argument.

Not really. The Ogryns have explicit permission to embark and no restriction is the core of the argument. I even presented the argument as a formal syllogism earlier in the thread, making it clear there are no fallacies. Feel free to point out the fallacious step if there is one, but don't straw man the argument please.

If you truly rely on technicalities of verbatims to make a point, then Orgyns, or any units for that matter, do not have "explicit permission to embark" - rather, transports have the explicit permission to have units embarked within it. Nowhere in the rules for the units tell you "this unit can embark on such and such transport vehicle."

To say, "ogryns have explicit permission to embark, and there are no specific restrictions that prevents it from doing so" is the SAME statement as "it is allowed to do so, because there is nothing telling you you cannot do so." There is no "straw manning" of any arguments here, my good sir.

It's a fallacy of 'ad ignorantum' where you claim something to be true because it cannot be proven false.
Syllogistic reasoning can be invalid, unsound, or weak depending on the strength of the premises assumed to be true. Simply forming a deductive reasoning doesn't make the statement true.

Ogryns have explicit permission to embark BECAUSE THE RULEBOOK EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY, AND ANY OTHER UNIT, CAN.

It's really that simple.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ogryns have explicit permission to embark BECAUSE THE RULEBOOK EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY, AND ANY OTHER UNIT, CAN.

It's really that simple.

I don't disagree. I'm only commenting at drager's the nitpicking of sequence of words.

In purely technical sense, the datasheet for a transport tells you 'This transport has capacity of X. It may carry so and so units. so and so units take up Y number of slots.'
What we DON'T have is on the datasheet for units that can embark on a transport 'This unit can embark on transport A, B, but not C.'

So, EXPLICTLY, transports have the ability embark units inside of it. It is logically IMPLIED that units can embark in transport.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ogryns have explicit permission to embark BECAUSE THE RULEBOOK EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY, AND ANY OTHER UNIT, CAN.

It's really that simple.

I don't disagree. I'm only commenting at drager's the nitpicking of sequence of words.

In purely technical sense, the datasheet for a transport tells you 'This transport has capacity of X. It may carry so and so units. so and so units take up Y number of slots.'
What we DON'T have is on the datasheet for units that can embark on a transport 'This unit can embark on transport A, B, but not C.'

So, EXPLICTLY, transports have the ability embark units inside of it. It is logically IMPLIED that units can embark in transport.

What is the argument here exactly and why does it change whether or not Ogryns can be inside of an Ambushing Transport?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually, the core of the argument is "Ambush doesn't say anything one way or another, therefore, it is inapplicable to the question."

I think the real core of the argument is rather "can transports carry passengers in reserves?" The conclusion arrived at is that "the transport rule doesn't say it cannot ferry units inside it when it is in reserves locale, therefore, it is able to ferry units inside it when it is in reserves locale." The "can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" question is a very specific instance of this larger issue at hand.

Once again, I am in full agreement as to what the RAW says. I am only insisting that the issue goes back to the poor writing on the transport rule that's been causing a lot of similar issues.

The premises <"can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" can be shortened to "can ogryns be deployed in a transport?"> is true because the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]. It is not that it is irrelevant, but rather undeterminable.

For the premises <can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in the right side of my Deployment Zone?> - the deployment zone rules are specific to the type of deployment selected/rolled for that game. Each deployment zone rules specifically outline the rules you must follow - it is a deployment ZONE, and not deployment SPOT. The right question to ask is then, "well, are you following all the applicable rules within your deployment zone?" If yes, you can deploy your transport with ogryns on the right side of your deployment zone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ogryns have explicit permission to embark BECAUSE THE RULEBOOK EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY, AND ANY OTHER UNIT, CAN.

It's really that simple.

I don't disagree. I'm only commenting at drager's the nitpicking of sequence of words.

In purely technical sense, the datasheet for a transport tells you 'This transport has capacity of X. It may carry so and so units. so and so units take up Y number of slots.'
What we DON'T have is on the datasheet for units that can embark on a transport 'This unit can embark on transport A, B, but not C.'

So, EXPLICTLY, transports have the ability embark units inside of it. It is logically IMPLIED that units can embark in transport.

What is the argument here exactly and why does it change whether or not Ogryns can be inside of an Ambushing Transport?

There is no argument. It's a simple reply to the overreaction on a statement made to introduce the other side of the argument that was interpreted as a disagreement.

 skchsan wrote:
The premises <"can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" can be shortened to "can ogryns be deployed in a transport?"> is true because the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]. It is not that it is irrelevant, but rather undeterminable.

I know I'm just replying to a single part of your post, but that's mostly because I simply agreed with the rest of what you said!

However, I do disagree that it's indeterminate (or undeterminable or whatever).
Let's take your premise word for word:

"the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]" - we'll call it P.

Then we'll look at my premise:

"whether a transport is on the battlefield or not, it may have units deployed inside of it" - that's Q.

If we put them together, we get:

If <"the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]">, then <"whether a transport is on the battlefield or not, it may have units deployed inside of it">. P->Q

You yourself have asserted P, therefore you must also accept Q, unless you disagree with the truth of Premise Q, in which case, I would challenge you to explain why you don't believe it to be the case.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The premises <"can Ogryns be deployed in a transport in Ambush?" can be shortened to "can ogryns be deployed in a transport?"> is true because the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]. It is not that it is irrelevant, but rather undeterminable.

I know I'm just replying to a single part of your post, but that's mostly because I simply agreed with the rest of what you said!

However, I do disagree that it's indeterminate (or undeterminable or whatever).
Let's take your premise word for word:

"the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]" - we'll call it P.

Then we'll look at my premise:

"whether a transport is on the battlefield or not, it may have units deployed inside of it" - that's Q.

If we put them together, we get:

If <"the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]">, then <"whether a transport is on the battlefield or not, it may have units deployed inside of it">. P->Q

You yourself have asserted P, therefore you must also accept Q, unless you disagree with the truth of Premise Q, in which case, I would challenge you to explain why you don't believe it to be the case.

Nope. The logic is flawless without any false premises, hence, why I agree with yours/bcb's interpretation of the RAW. All I'm insisting that the FAQ needs to address the "the transport rule doesn't make a distinction between [transport on battlefield] and [transport in reserve]" portion, because it's precisely the lack of this definition that's causing numerous issues with transport interactions.

It's because it seems to point at that only transports that must/may begin has these so called "reminder texts" explicitly "reminding" you that it's a transport and thus follows transport rules. I think there is a reasonable doubt to believe that transports weren't meant to be able to carry passengers in reserves unless specifically given permission to do so - but as the rules as written currently stands, any and all transports can carry passengers anywhere in any locale.

 skchsan wrote:

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
But does that leads to correct result or are you altering rules by skipping rules...

The issue is that "it isnt explicitly stated as true, therefore it mus be false," which is a logical fallacy.

"Ambush doesn't state that you cannot do as such, therefore it must be allowed to do so." is the core of the argument.

Not really. The Ogryns have explicit permission to embark and no restriction is the core of the argument. I even presented the argument as a formal syllogism earlier in the thread, making it clear there are no fallacies. Feel free to point out the fallacious step if there is one, but don't straw man the argument please.

If you truly rely on technicalities of verbatims to make a point, then Orgyns, or any units for that matter, do not have "explicit permission to embark" - rather, transports have the explicit permission to have units embarked within it. Nowhere in the rules for the units tell you "this unit can embark on such and such transport vehicle."

The transport rules in the Battle Primer combined with the specific rules on the transport in question give explicit permission. You would not have to have a rule on the datasheet of the Ogryns for a rule to be explicit, you simply need the rules written clearly and with sufficient detail to leave no room for confusion or doubt. This is the case for the permission to embark. An example of an implicit permission would be making the assumption that a rule reading something like "Splinter weapons may reroll 1s to hit" affects both Splinter Cannons and Splinter Rifles, this is due to the fact that these weapons don't have a type or rule called Splinter, but merely have it in the name. Something may be both explicit and indirect as the permission for Ogryns is in this case.

 skchsan wrote:
To say, "ogryns have explicit permission to embark, and there are no specific restrictions that prevents it from doing so" is the SAME statement as "it is allowed to do so, because there is nothing telling you you cannot do so." There is no "straw manning" of any arguments here, my good sir. It's a fallacy of 'ad ignorantum' where you claim something to be true because it cannot be proven false.

It is not the same statement, perhaps my phrasing confused you and, if so, I apologise. Ogryns are given explicit permission to embark. That is the crux, the second clause was clarification to show that if there were specific restrictions then they would be prevented. This is the same logic for them being able to embark on the battlefield or units being able to be selected to shoot in the shooting phase. There is an explicit permission and no specific restriction, except where such restrictions do exist (e.g. advancing in the case of being selected to shoot). An argumentum ad ignorantiam is an argument whereby one assumes the position that because another does not know the information that the proposition of their antagonist must be true. That is not a part of this argument, as you can see from both the way others have stated it and my earlier syllogism, there is no strut of this based upon claiming another's position is unknown or false, the arguments stands on it's own.

Premise 1) The Tallarn stratagem tells you to set up a unit in ambush.
Premise 2) The rules for embarking passengers trigger on a transport being set up.
Conclusion) Passengers can embark on a transport that has used the stratagem.

That is not an argument from ignorance.

 skchsan wrote:
Syllogistic reasoning can be invalid, unsound, or weak depending on the strength of the premises assumed to be true. Simply forming a deductive reasoning doesn't make the statement true.

This I 100% agree with, which is why I invited you to point out the flaw or fallacy in the syllogism, rather than arguing (I now assume unintentionally) against a straw man position, which was not that advanced. I can see where you might have been confused by my wording and that of others in this thread, but you were in fact addressing a diffferent argument to the one put forward. I agree the argument you were addressing is fallacious, but it is not my argument, or anyone elses as far as I can see, as such it is a straw man, albeit an unintentional one.

I’ve read the thread and despite all the reasoning being put forward I keep coming back to common sense. Yes some of this is possible until GW FAQs it, but do you really want to do this to someone? I mean imagine being in a friendly game with a newb and suddenly 2 BaneHammers pop out their flanks and 16 Bullgryn (plus the other models outflanking) smash into them, it’s kinda NOT FUN and can turn people away from the game.
For tournaments I can see this kind of thing being banned.

 davidgr33n wrote:
I’ve read the thread and despite all the reasoning being put forward I keep coming back to common sense. Yes some of this is possible until GW FAQs it, but do you really want to do this to someone? I mean imagine being in a friendly game with a newb and suddenly 2 BaneHammers pop out their flanks and 16 Bullgryn (plus the other models outflanking) smash into them, it’s kinda NOT FUN and can turn people away from the game.
For tournaments I can see this kind of thing being banned.

What is "unfair" is irrelevant. All that matters is what the rules say you can do.

I wouldn't say that's all that matters. This is a social game after all.

But for YMDC, that is certainly true. If there just wasn't two good cases being argued here....

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 davidgr33n wrote:
I’ve read the thread and despite all the reasoning being put forward I keep coming back to common sense. Yes some of this is possible until GW FAQs it, but do you really want to do this to someone? I mean imagine being in a friendly game with a newb and suddenly 2 BaneHammers pop out their flanks and 16 Bullgryn (plus the other models outflanking) smash into them, it’s kinda NOT FUN and can turn people away from the game.
For tournaments I can see this kind of thing being banned.

What is "unfair" is irrelevant. All that matters is what the rules say you can do.

I said nothing about it being “unfair”, my exact wording was “NOT FUN”, especially when considering who you’re playing. I’m sure the 8 year old kid who is playing in his first game at your local game store would be thrilled to get his face stomped by such a tactic.

In a tourney or bet game bring out all the stops.

I love that people judge "what is fun" by what an 8 year old would enjoy.

As for the rest of us, we recognize that the Ogryns cannot get out of the transport until the turn after it arrives, meaning that you have an entire turn to get out of their way, and the transport can't move before they disembark, so it's not like you know where they are. Furthermore, that also gives you time to destroy the transport, which, while not easy when speaking of the Imperial superheavy transports, is not exactly hard, either. Especially if you have planned for it.

Secondly, even if the Ogryns make it into combat, they are not very frightening. Elite infantry, like Space Marines, are likely only to lose a few of their number, while hordes like Imperial Guard infantry are unlikely to notice the losses.

Lastly, the rest of us also recognize the expenditure of resources required to achieve this, including 404 points minimum for a superheavy transport with only two guns, and another 150-200 points for the ogryns, plus the 3 Command Points for the stratagem. It isn't like it is free.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more inclined I am to simply advance the superheavy transport forwards from my deployment zone. You'll get 11-16" closer to the enemy, can disembark turn 2 (just like the stratagem) and crash into whatever you want, and you save 3CP. If you even want to spend 550-600 points on the trick.