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.

I agree with the last couple of comments stating that a unit and its transport can be taken off even if you roll a 1 or 2. A transport only takes up a second slot for DoW purposes but not for the rule.

Shame on those people that said you needed to roll a 5 or 6 just to move a unit w/ its transport and HQ. The rule is ment to move the entire unit while its in its transport. If it was played otherwise it wouldnt be worth putting in the book.

Seriously?

A transport is always, always, always a separate unit. Always. So in order to redeploy 2 units (the transport and the unit inside it) you need to roll at least 2.

Nice one, a page and a half of healthy discussion and so far nobody has resorted to language comprehension bullslits!



I'm very definitely down with the consensus surrounding pulling stuff out of reserve and swapping in stuff that doesn't fit the usual DoW deployment restrictions (which seems to be a 'no' in both cases), but I'm still not wholly convinced that redeploying Malys' Raider off the table in DoW is strictly breaking any rules, at least not enough that I'd complain if my opponent wanted to do it. Just seems a little restrictive given the weirdness of the deployment type.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Seriously?

A transport is always, always, always a separate unit. Always. So in order to redeploy 2 units (the transport and the unit inside it) you need to roll at least 2.

The rules very definitely seem to support this, but right or wrong I'm never, ever going to tell an opponent that he needs to roll more than a 1 on a D3 in order to redeploy a unit embarked in a transport vehicle, so the number of units represented by the transport vehicle model isn't an issue for me.

It sad, but it needs an FAQ, if only to make it stone-clad.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Seriously?

A transport is always, always, always a separate unit. Always. So in order to redeploy 2 units (the transport and the unit inside it) you need to roll at least 2.

Is the unit inside the transport still where you left it--inside the transport?

If it is, then you haven't haven't changed how it was deployed so you haven't redeployed it.

Why are you claiming that you have to redeploy the passengers just to move the transport?

Their position on the table has changed, thus they have been redeployed. Unless you claim that deployment is simply "embarked" and not "embarked in a vehicle at {x,y,z} position"?

Well, that's the thing, Nos. The rules don't clearly favor "embarked in x Raider" over "embarked in x Raider at {x,y,z position, at x degrees orientation", or vice versa. Although the Eldred ruling actually suggests the intention MIGHT be the former.

Mannahnin wrote:Well, that's the thing, Nos. The rules don't clearly favor "embarked in x Raider" over "embarked in x Raider at {x,y,z position, at x degrees orientation", or vice versa. Although the Eldred ruling actually suggests the intention MIGHT be the former.

As much as I would like to say that you could redeploy just one and not change it, I am inclined to agree with Mannahin here, simply because of the fact that if a vehicle moves, its passengers also count as moving for the purposes of use. Now, in a friendly game, I would probably allow the movement of the raider and occupants as a single choice, but in a tourney, this might work to forestall your opponent.

I'm on the other side of this one.

To deploy a unit in a transport one says it's in or 'puts' it in the transport.
A unit that is embarked on a transport is not on the board.

If a unit that was embarked on a transport and

nosferatu1001 wrote:Their position on the table has changed, thus they have been redeployed. Unless you claim that deployment is simply "embarked" and not "embarked in a vehicle at {x,y,z} position"?

was true. It would either be legal to move the vehicle while leaving the unit in place or removing the unit from the transport would count as redeploying 1 unit, yet both units 'positions' would have been changed 'tranport with unit embarked at x,y,c and unit embarked at x,y,c' to 'tranport without unit embarked at x,y,c and unit embarked at a,b,c'.

"when it is deployed it can only carry the unit it
was selected with (plus any independent
characters)." Page 67, makes it clear that when a DT is deployed the unit inside is being 'carried', not that the unit is deployed in it. If one reads the whole section on deployment, it's apparent that being deployed involves being put onto the table. It isn't movement. One has not put the unit onto the table in any location - it is inside the transport. Disembarking help to support this interpretation as "When the unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of" Pg 67, even tells us that to move from a transport (off the board) onto the board is to deploy.

To count a unit in a transport as being on the table, ergo to give them a position on the table, creates a large assortment of rules issues and it is the established position that units inside transport do not count as being on the table.

To claim that a units position has changed due to a transport moving is erroneous because the unit has not changed it's position, it's still off the board embarked in a transport. One can measure to a unit that is embarked by locating the hull of the vehicle, so if one looked for the 'position' of an embarked unit it would always be 'where the vehicle is' not 'on the board in the vehicle'.

If a vehicle was, say, there, with a unit inside and one decided to put that unit into reserves - only one units deployment has changed.
If one moves a vehicle with an embarked unit again only one units deployment or position, has been changed, the embarked unit after all is not on the board.
If one both moves the vehicle and puts the unit into reserve or otherwise changes their position, ie by disembarking and thus deploying them, one has change the position of both units - even if that unit is now exactly where the vehicle was.

INcorrect. WHen measuring to a unit, measure to the hull.

The unit has a very, very defined position on the table.

ChrisCP wrote: One can measure to a unit that is embarked by locating the hull of the vehicle...

Chris - yet you wrote:

To claim that a units position has changed due to a transport moving is erroneous because the unit has not changed it's position, it's still off the board embarked in a transport. One can measure to a unit that is embarked by locating the hull of the vehicle, so if one looked for the 'position' of an embarked unit it would always be 'where the vehicle is' not 'on the board in the vehicle'.

WHich is wrong. I can prove the units position has changed, as measuring to embarked models shows.

Units being "off the table" is a 4th ed concept.

E.G. You initilly position the vehicle 6" frmo the table edge. The unit is, for all intents and purposes, 6" from the table edge.

If you move it so it is 9" from the back edge, the unit is now 9" from the back edge. It's position and therefore deployment has changed.

Ah well, as that's the point. To locate the unit one must measure to the vehicle. A unit can start the game in a transport, and if you're to maintain that being transported is not actually how a units deployed and the rules ask for something more I'd ask that you can find it.
Because "When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported" pg66 shows that the unit is being transported inside the vehicle and "The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit" pg67 makes it clear the transport is deployed and the unit is being carried, that is it's status so to say. It isn't on the table, it's being transported in the vehicle and that's how it starts the game, as they aren't deployed unitl "the unit disembarks, each model is deployed" pg67, page 94 backs this up "that a dedicated transport can only be deployed, and consequently can only be kept in reserve, either empty or transporting the unit".

So if you ant to say that the unit is embarked and here, then okay, I just don't feel there is anything in the rules to support your position of how a unit is deployed or starts the game.

"Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them." Pg 48, under your interpretation to redeploy the IC into reserves while leaving the unit in place would be more often than be redeploying two units, because the 'position' of both change. But the deployment of only one unit has changed the IC which has been moved into reserves, the unit is still in place.

Hmm, DoW, grr.

nosferatu1001 wrote:INcorrect. WHen measuring to a unit, measure to the hull.

The unit has a very, very defined position on the table.

Yes, a units defined position when embarked is within the transport. What's the context of your reference? By itself it is a useless reference as there is no reason you would ever be allowed to measure to a unit embarked in a transport. You can't target the unit so what's the purpose of this quote? Why would anyone need to measure to the embarked unit during deployment, excluding placing scouts, when measuring to only the transport fulfills that requirement?

You're emphatic on being correct but fail to prove your position. Context please.

Why is it important?
Because when you move the vehicle, you also move the embarked unit. Meaning both have been re-redeployed.

Which was the entire point of this thread. Context satisfied?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why is it important?
Because when you move the vehicle, you also move the embarked unit. Meaning both have been re-redeployed.

Which was the entire point of this thread. Context satisfied?

No, actually the thread was trying to establish if you could use Precognisant to pull units out of reserve and to see if we could work out how it interacted with Dawn of War deployment.

You've somehow managed to derail it into a discussion over wether you'd need to roll more than 1 on a D3 to move a transport and any unit embarked on it.

Which is completely irrelevant.

No, because the unit is still embarked where it has always been regardless of the location of the transport. The vehicle being redeployed does not change the deployment status of the unit embarked.

While your own interpretation completely misses the mark it either forces the owning player to redeploy 2 units when they can only move one, or it would prohibit the owning player from being able to even make use of the 'Precognisant' rule bestowed on Lady M. To follow your thought process requires more adjustment to the existing rules and ignores precedent set by FAQ's which is more complicated to deal with.

And for the record, 'Context' is determined by the surrounding text of quoted information, not you personal interpretation.

To address the OP's original issue, I'd say that as long as Lady M rolled at least 2 then not only would her Raider and attached squad be able to be placed back into reserves, but it would indeed allow the owning player to place another HQ attached to a squad embarked in a transport on the board as well. It would have to be specifically an HQ and 2 troops still.

Rymafyr - no, the unit was embarked on a transport at location {x,y,x} and is now located at location {x',y',z'}, thus is deployed in a different location and must have therefore been "redeployed"

Oh look, that means 2 units have been redeployed.

Please show how this ignores the "precedent" set by a FAQ for a different army and a differently worded power, and you may have an argument. Additionally please precisely show which rules it requires altering, as the tenets of YMDC require you to do, in order to substantiate your argument that this "requires more adjustment to the existing rules"

You cannot redeploy something that has never been deployed, and thus cannot pull something OUT of reserves. Again, please back up your assertion that you can do so.

Lictor - how about you avoid insulting posters who disagree with you? Have a quick perusal of the tenets perhaps.

I have a thought that hasn't been posted up yet. I can see both sides of this arguement, and both have valid points, but consider this.....

The troop unit on the transport in question is deployed "embarked upon the transport." It is not embarked at point x,y,z or any other point "on" the board because technically, the unit is not on the board and has yet to be on the board, they have only been standing on the deck of their Raider.

Since they have not yet pohysically deployed onto the board, they have deployed onto the deck of the Raider, wouldn't they still be deployed in the same spot that they started in if you move the transports position???

The Raider started at point x,y,z but the troops didn't, they started on the deck of the raider. Following that line of logic, if the deck of the Raider moves, as long as they are still on the deck of the Raider, wouldn't they still be in the same spot they started at???

And before anyone decides that they need to say that if I want to do it this way, I have to physically put the models on the Raider to count that, I have two things to say.....

If you tell me that the Warriors have to fit physically in the raider for me to use it, I will tell you the same thing for your transports, so that would say that if you cant fit those terminators inside that land raider, or those 10 howling banshees in that wave serpent, then they can never get in it.

Not in the rule book, but in the instructions for the Raiders assembly they give you three Warriors that hang off the side and it states that you can either permanently attach them or dry mount them for the purpose of representing someone being embarked on the Raider.

No, because if you need to determine the units position you can do so; you measure to the vehicles hull.

Thus you are able to determine that they ARE deployed at that position.

How about we just take it as read that you can deploy the transport alongside any unit embarked in it as a single unit, and just go on with our lives?

Sound like fun?

Please show rules support for that position, as required in the tenets of this forum. Second time of asking now.

Sound like a plan for a sensible discussion where you avoid insults?

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, because if you need to determine the units position you can do so; you measure to the vehicles hull.

Thus you are able to determine that they ARE deployed at that position.

That location being inside the transport?

I don't have a book on me, but where is the passage that explains starting the game with transports and units embarked?

Does it state that those units may be deployed onboard? If so, then that's where they are deployed. It doesn't matter how you measure to them throughout the game, they are deployed embarked in the transport. If the transport were moved, they were still deployed embarked in the transport. They do have a physical position (for purposes such as DoW) that is on the table, but they are still deployed in only one place.

Again, this is assuming that's how the rules for starting the game with transports work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please show how this ignores the "precedent" set by a FAQ for a different army and a differently worded power, and you may have an argument.

You mean, a FAQ for a variant of the same race, for a power that differs only in that it allows d3+1 to be redeployed instead of d3, and doesn't say "including back in reserve"? What exactly do you believe "precedent" means, when "how something trivially different and closely related has been ruled" doesn't qualify? There is no precedent to support your interpretation, and there is precedent to support the opposing interpretation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because when you move the vehicle, you also move the embarked unit.

No, you don't. Otherwise transports could never move farther in a turn than any embarked infantry (unit A is "embarked in transport at point x,y,z" transport moves to "x+18,y,z", unit A can only move 6" and therefore can't change position to "embarked in transport at point x+18,y,z"; this is obviously not how transports are handled, but is functionally equivalent to "changing the position of the transport requires the ability to equivalently change that of the unit inside as well"). A unit is *inside* the transport. Its position at any given time is "wherever the transport is."

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please show rules support for that position, as required in the tenets of this forum. Second time of asking now.

Sound like a plan for a sensible discussion where you avoid insults?

Firstly, if you think I've insulted you please feel free to refer the post that's bothering you to a moderator. I can't see any insult, and am inclined to suggest you're being a bit sensitive.

Secondly, in respect of the issue you're raising, this thread has never been about how many units a transport with a unit embarked is counted as by RaW. We're assuming it counts as one. If you want to argue that point make a seperate thread; I may see you there, but the likelihood is I won't because as far as I'm concerned a unit embarked upon a transport counts as a single unit for all game purposes with a few situational exceptions.

That means I'll never, ever, in a million years, demand my opponent treat the transport and it's embarked unit as seperate entities for any purpose other than shooting at stuff and DoW deployment limits. I don't care if my position is supported by the rules; that's how I play it, and I'll keep playing it that way until GW tells me to stop.

In any case this issue is completely and utterly irrelevant to the topics I raised in this thread: namely, how Lady Malys' special rule interacts with Dawn of War deployment and if I can use said rule to pull units out of reserve.

It is relevant to the example I gave, so for the sake of clarity let's assume I never mentioned a unit in a Raider.

Let's instead pretend I used a less contentious example; let's say I have a squad of Warriors with Lady Malys attached to it. Can I use Lady Malys' rule to redeploy this unit off the table in a DoW mission?

Consensus says no, but I'm still interested in hearing any other viewpoints that might arise, and having the thread derailed into a debate about how many units the transport and it's embarked unit should count as is not conducive to that.

So, like... stop it.

Lictor_Interdictor wrote:Which is completely irrelevant because no right-thinking person would ever require someone to score 2 on a D3 to redeploy such a unit.

This bit right here really isn't necessary and is contrary to the tenets of YMDC. Making a negative characterization about a person, or a categoric insult to everyone who disagrees with a given position, is inappropriate and weakens your own argument.

That being said, your avatar makes me giggle, so that tends to soften it a little.

Sir P - and that deployment is "inside the vehicle at position {x,y,z}". There is nothing to support that the position of the vehicle, and thus the unit, is not a part of deployment.

Lictor - I trust now Mann has pointed out the negative characterisation you made of everyone who disagrees with your position you can now see it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rymafyr - no, the unit was embarked on a transport at location {x,y,x} and is now located at location {x',y',z'}, thus is deployed in a different location and must have therefore been "redeployed"

Oh look, that means 2 units have been redeployed.

Now, my gut reaction is to agree with this, but I have to say that I'm not 100% sure that this is what GW intends or how it will eventually be ruled.

I think it's ALSO a reasonable intepretation to say that "inside transport x" is a legitimate deployment location, and, perhaps tellingly, if that is how GW means it, then the Eldrad Divination ruling would not be in conflict with the base deployment rules.

Right now if we interpret a unit in a transport on the table as being deployed at a specific location, the FAQ ruling that Divination only counts a transport & embarked unit as 1 unit for redeployment is in conflict with the base deployment rules. Now, that's all well and good; FAQ answers can and frequently do override the rules. But if instead of "inside transport x located at location {x',y',z'}", we just say a unit is deployed "inside transport x", then Eldrad's Divination is actually compatible with the deployment rules, rather than needing to override them.

If we follow that interpretation, then it also paves the way for us to resolve Lady Malys' Precognition the same way. Which maintains continuity and consistency between two similar rules.

Lictor_Interdictor wrote:Let's instead pretend I used a less contentious example; let's say I have a squad of Warriors with Lady Malys attached to it. Can I use Lady Malys' rule to redeploy this unit off the table in a DoW mission?

Consensus says no, but I'm still interested in hearing any other viewpoints that might arise, and having the thread derailed into a debate about how many units the transport and it's embarked unit should count as is not conducive to that.

In this case I believe you can. The latest FAQ says you can nominate an IC to join a unit prior to deployment.
The rules say that an IC can only leave a unit during its movement phase.
Lady Malys rule says the DE player can redeploy D3 units including placing them in reserve.
In this case, since Lady Malys joined with the Warriors prior to deployment, they are a single unit and can be redeployed together if desired.
In fact, they can only be redeployed or placed in reserve together because the IC cannot leave the unit until its movement phase.
This is further backed up by the latest BRB FAQ that says an IC attached to a unit that is arriving from reserve, whether outflanking or not, cannot leave the unit the turn it arrives, but can leave it as normal in the following turn.

Continuity between GW rules? You're expecting a lot here

Wait until the revised FAQ comes out, it'll be something entirely different....

So, models are deployed with a transport, but do not count as re-deployed when the transport is?