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.

No, it doesn't. It says they must be Mounted, which has no meaning in 40k.

bsohi wrote:But you're the one holding the strict definition here mate!

I'm saying equate the term 'mounted' with the gaming term of 'Dedicated transport' whose rules we all agree on and are clearly understood. The rules, in essence say, that the dominion squad must buy a dedicated transport.

You're the guy who broke out a DICTIONARY definiton of the word mounted, instead of just going with the commonly agreed on gaming meaning of the word...

Don't try and paint -us- as the black and white hardline extremists....

I quoted the rule that clearly states they -must- be mounted in a transport vehicle, the next sentance says that it has to be one from the list given in their options.

at what point am I reading too much into the rules........ I am not saying that they must stay in it after game start, simply that they must be mounted in a dedicated transport at some point of the game (ie... the start)

saying that they could never get out is an extreme reading as there is no rule that says a unit cannot disembark from a vehicle.

@ Dj There's no rule saying a squad can never leave a vehicle, but there's also no rule saying a squad must start the game inside one...


I see myself as a middle man between the two of you.

Gwar! says 'must be mounted' has "no meaning in 40k"

Dj, you say, "must be mounted" means they can't leave their dedicated transport.

I say they must purchase a dedicated transport to be fielded, but they don't need to be in it.

That sounds reasonable, yeah?

Yes, they must be mounted in a Transport, like you said. This does not mean they have to start in it.
You get that? They must have a Transport, but DO NOT HAVE TO START IN IT! Because it does not say "They Must Start in it".

Nor, like you claim, have to remain in it forever because they would then not be mounted (which is what your reading results in.)

Gwar! wrote:No, it doesn't. It says they must be Mounted, which has no meaning in 40k.

then why is it in a codex if it has no meaning.......

footslogging has no meaning in the BRB so does that mean my guys can now fly............

Mounted in a vehicle is the same as embarking in a vehicle, by definition,

DJ, assuming what you say was the case, how would that be handled concerning reserves? If DoW was rolled, you would hit a situation where it is possible that either the Transport or the Dominion Squad might not be able to deploy due to bad rolls. After all, each one is a seperate unit (it says so in the 5th ed rulebook FAQ when referencing units firing from transports)

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf
Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that
their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so
can fire at a different target.

I understand that this is "only" a FAQ, and that this is talking about firing, but on the other hand, they say "they are a seperate unit". This would cause a situation where one gets the chance to be deployed, but not the other, but then the one being deployed can not exist without the first one, completely causing the 40k universe to fold in on itself. I can only logically conclude from this that RAW interpretation of the rule is that deployment is impossible for any unit, and the only possible RAI interpretation is "TACO!"

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, it doesn't. It says they must be Mounted, which has no meaning in 40k.

then why is it in a codex if it has no meaning......

because they assumed we would have 3 brain cells and realise it means they have to buy a Transport.

bsohi wrote:@ Dj There's no rule saying a squad can never leave a vehicle, but there's also no rule saying a squad must start the game inside one...


I see myself as a middle man between the two of you.

Gwar! says 'must be mounted' has "no meaning in 40k"

Dj, you say, "must be mounted" means they can't leave their dedicated transport.

I say they must purchase a dedicated transport to be fielded, but they don't need to be in it.

That sounds reasonable, yeah?

This is were I disagree with you....... the rules states that they MUST be mounted in a vehicle...... that seems to state that they must start in one, I am not saying they cant leave it ever,

DJ Illuminati wrote:This is were I disagree with you....... the rules states that they MUST be mounted in a vehicle...... that seems to state that they must start in one, I am not saying they cant leave it ever,

Where does it state this? Could you please provide us with a Rules Quote from the Rulebook please?

The rules don't say they can leave. The rule also does not say it stops taking effect after the first turn. All rules, are generally in effect for the duration of the game. So they must be mounted all game, yeah?

daedalus wrote:DJ, assuming what you say was the case, how would that be handled concerning reserves? If DoW was rolled, you would hit a situation where it is possible that either the Transport or the Dominion Squad might not be able to deploy due to bad rolls. After all, each one is a seperate unit (it says so in the 5th ed rulebook FAQ when referencing units firing from transports)

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf
Q. Must passengers fire at the same target that
their vehicle is firing at?
A. No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so
can fire at a different target.

I understand that this is "only" a FAQ, and that this is talking about firing, but on the other hand, they say "they are a seperate unit". This would cause a situation where one gets the chance to be deployed, but not the other, but then the one being deployed can not exist without the first one, completely causing the 40k universe to fold in on itself. I can only logically conclude from this that RAW interpretation of the rule is that deployment is impossible for any unit, and the only possible RAI interpretation is "TACO!"

for shooting they are seperate units..... but for reserve you roll for the vehicle and any units in it are brought into play as well....BRB page 94 6th paragraph down

And what happens if you have them separate in reserve, as you are allowed to?
Or is that another magical invisible rule in the WH codex?

Actually, I may have something, turning yet again back to the FAQs.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180142_Witch_Hunters_FAQ_2004-08_5th_Edition.pdf
Transports
The second print run of the Codex removed
references to a transport vehicle only being
usable by the unit that bought it .

This certainly implies that it is possible for others to USE the transport vehicle, though I suppose now it will be necessary to argue the meaning and intent of the word "use".

Gwar! wrote:And what happens if you have them separate in reserve, as you are allowed to?
Or is that another magical invisible rule in the WH codex?

show me the page where it says you may start outside of a dedicated transport........


not that I am arguing that specific rule but I want you to waste your time looking up stuff

DJ Illuminati wrote:show me the page where it says you may start outside of a dedicated transport........

The deployment rules?

daedalus wrote:Actually, I may have something, turning yet again back to the FAQs.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180142_Witch_Hunters_FAQ_2004-08_5th_Edition.pdf
Transports
The second print run of the Codex removed
references to a transport vehicle only being
usable by the unit that bought it .

This certainly implies that it is possible for others to USE the transport vehicle, though I suppose now it will be necessary to argue the meaning and intent of the word "use".

lol

that just got rid of the rule preventing an empty rhino/immolator from being used by a differant squad

So now you're just being flat out uncooperative. Good to know we can all debate like adults here!

bsohi wrote:So now you're just being flat out uncooperative. Good to know we can all debate like adults here!

Looks like this thread is heading for a lock, and it's not my fault

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:show me the page where it says you may start outside of a dedicated transport........

The deployment rules?

Show me exactly where it says a Dedicated transport may be deployed seperate from its host unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bsohi wrote:So now you're just being flat out uncooperative. Good to know we can all debate like adults here!

It goes both ways..........


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bsohi wrote:So now you're just being flat out uncooperative. Good to know we can all debate like adults here!

so because I dont instantly agree to your opinion I am now the bad guy??? Seems kind of biased......

Dj, you know full well that a unit does not need to start inside their dedicated transport. This is the beginning of the end of your arguement.

DJ Illuminati wrote:Show me exactly where it says a Dedicated transport may be deployed seperate from its host unit

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

From that you can infer that it is otherwise treated as a totally separate unit, and thus may be deployed separately, because as there is only one limitation, everything else goes.

bsohi wrote:Dj, you know full well that a unit does not need to start inside their dedicated transport. This is the beginning of the end of your arguement.

no..... if we are going to explore this the full measure, then show me where it says that they can deploy seperately....... If this is going to be the basis of why you guys say that I am wrong then prove it in a way other than pretending that mounted isnt a word and going to extreme "all or nothing" approaches to this issue


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Show me exactly where it says a Dedicated transport may be deployed seperate from its host unit

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

From that you can infer that it is otherwise treated as a totally separate unit, and thus may be deployed separately, because as there is only one limitation, everything else goes.

dont tell me that you may INFER one thing and yet I may not........ does it say specificaly that you may deploy an empty rhino..... untill I see a rule that says it in plain english I will assume you are wrong (if it is good enough for you it shall work for me)

Specific beats general.... I belive that is the term?

It doesn't say I can't burn your house down either.
You are being deliberately asinine and rude and as such I am removing myself from this debate lest I get sanctioned again, with a final remark that you are 100% incorrect.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Show me exactly where it says a Dedicated transport may be deployed seperate from its host unit

because as there is only one limitation, everything else goes.

So the limitation of the Dominions "MUST BE MOUNTED in a transport listed....." is the only limitation......after that they can get out??? is that what I am seeing

But that's a limitation that's game-long mate. Go ahead, play it your way, but the Dominions can't leave their rhino or whatever now. Have fun!

Gwar! wrote:It doesn't say I can't burn your house down either.
You are being deliberately asinine and rude and as such I am removing myself from this debate (if you can call it that anymore, your ghastly grammar makes your posts unbearable to read) lest I get sanctioned again, with a final remark that you are 100% incorrect.

I believe it is against the rules for me to tell you how childish that final remark is, but I know a lot of us are thinking it. Just because you have met someone who used your own tactics against you and you cannot prove without a doubt that you are right, that does not mean you shoud call me names and make a snide comment on your way out.

Gwar wishes to use an All-or-nothing approach to his view point, I simply want him to show me the "all" aspect rather than tell me that I am wrong and not back it up with anything more than "infers" and deliberate mis-reading (is mount that confusing a word) of the rules that he doesnt like.

If anyone else has a view of how this works then please let me know, but please understand that some words do not have clear 100% definitions in the BRB and thus we must meet somewhere in the middle........


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bsohi wrote:But that's a limitation that's game-long mate. Go ahead, play it your way, but the Dominions can't leave their rhino or whatever now. Have fun!

Is it possible that Gwar was using two accounts to attack me, or is it simply mob mentality that keeps a debate like that going??

DJ Illuminati wrote:So the limitation of the Dominions "MUST BE MOUNTED in a transport listed....." is the only limitation......after that they can get out??? is that what I am seeing

No, you're seeing crappy English in a GW publication. What a surprise. All the retinues and troops in my DH/WH codexes that can buy a transport have it presented as "may be mounted" for X points. So if they don't start in the transport they may not have it? Hmm... third edition codex, third edition wordings. IMO all it means is they may have a dedicated transport (two words missing from those books, BTW).

Spetulhu wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:So the limitation of the Dominions "MUST BE MOUNTED in a transport listed....." is the only limitation......after that they can get out??? is that what I am seeing

No, you're seeing crappy English in a GW publication. What a surprise. All the retinues and troops in my DH/WH codexes that can buy a transport have it presented as "may be mounted" for X points. So if they don't start in the transport they may not have it? Hmm... third edition codex, third edition wordings. IMO all it means is they may have a dedicated transport (two words missing from those books, BTW).

I see what you are saying, and that is by far the first point that makes sense...... I guess where the big hangup came along is where the Tau codex says that Pathfinders must select a transport, where as the WH codex says that the Dominion squad -must- be mounted....

DJ Illuminati, you have been confrontational and argumentative in this thread. You have antagonized other posters who had no other crime than disagreeing with you, and seem to be dragging a personal grudge with other posters into this.

Gwar is not using multiple accounts to attack you; these are all seperate posters who have independently come to the same conclusion. This in itself should be a clue that you should re-examine your position instead of lashing out.

Also, please click on Rule #1 in my signature to re-examine the Dakka Rules. You have been rude and inconsiderate in this topic. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

Thank you.

DJ Illuminati wrote:I guess where the big hangup came along is where the Tau codex says that Pathfinders must select a transport, where as the WH codex says that the Dominion squad -must- be mounted....

Exactly. In this particular 3rd edition way of saying it "mounted" means those units can buy a dedicated transport. Dominions "must be mounted" so it's mandatory to buy a transport for them.