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.

DevianID wrote:insaniak, the models were already removed from the tabletop when they embarked, and you are trying to remove them from the tabletop for a second time.

No, the models were removed from the tabletop, but we pretend that they are inside a vehicle that is still on the table. In which case when I next try to remove them from the tabletop, I need to 'remove' them from the transport, because I'm pretending that they are in there.

Can units embarked in one transport embark into an empty transport within 2 inches?

They could if the rules didn't forbid units from embarking and disembarking on the same turn.

...measures from any point on the vehicles hull for any reason, ...

No idea where you get that idea from.


The other two are more or less correct, though. The unit is not physically standing on the table, but they are still on the table for most in-game purposes.

Insaniak, in your gate example, just like my embarking example, the unit never disembarks. Its just removed from the table, apparently.

we pretend that they are inside a vehicle that is still on the table

Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table? Does this work with destroyed units too? Is the power to pretend so great that it can place units removed from the table back on the table? Do you see why I find flaws in your rules arguement?

'Embarked' is what the unit is. 'Embarked' is a condition that a unit that is not on the table can find itself in. When 'Embarked,' the unit off the table is allowed to do some very specific things, things that get explained how they work with a unit that is not on the table. Gate does not do any of this.

DevianID wrote:Insaniak, in your gate example, just like my embarking example, the unit never disembarks. Its just removed from the table, apparently.

If the unit doesn't disembark, it never left the vehicle.

The problem is that you are trying to look at a single rule in a vaccuum. That way lies madness.

Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Because in most cases transport vehicle models aren't designed so that you can physically put the models inside.

Does this work with destroyed units too?

Why would it?

Is the power to pretend so great that it can place units removed from the table back on the table?

Sorry, you lost me there...

Do you see why I find flaws in your rules arguement?

No, I'm a little puzzled as to why you're trying to build this up into such an issue when it's really not.

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:The vanguards can combat squad if theybare deployed at the setup. But if they are held in reserve, they may not split up.

They combat squad when they are deployed, they can be combat squaded when deploying from reserve and can be split into 2 5 man squads.there is a common misreading of the poorly worded space marine FAQ that makes it seem like you can't but what it is actually saying is that you cannot combat squad while in reserve.

See this thread for more information: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/387294.page

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

and again no one argues this, we are saying the clearly obvious, that they are not on the table, therefore cannot be removed from it to DS bac in, nothing in that FAQ changes that they are not actually on the table.

To the people saying "The casting of GoI does not hinge on you removing them from the table", sorry but this is wrong, we cant just pick and choose which part of the rules we listen to., gate does indeed hinge on being able to be removed from the table, as it is actually one of its conditions

The FAQ means they coexist with the vehicle; if the vehicle is on the table then so are they as far as the rules are concerned.

Formosa wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

and again no one argues this, we are saying the clearly obvious, that they are not on the table, therefore cannot be removed from it to DS bac in, nothing in that FAQ changes that they are not actually on the table.

To the people saying "The casting of GoI does not hinge on you removing them from the table", sorry but this is wrong, we cant just pick and choose which part of the rules we listen to., gate does indeed hinge on being able to be removed from the table, as it is actually one of its conditions

So they are coexisting with the vehicle which is on the table, but they aren't on the table?
So they're both on the table and not?

... Schrödinger's librarian?

Formosa wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

and again no one argues this, we are saying the clearly obvious, that they are not on the table, therefore cannot be removed from it to DS bac in, nothing in that FAQ changes that they are not actually on the table.

To the people saying "The casting of GoI does not hinge on you removing them from the table", sorry but this is wrong, we cant just pick and choose which part of the rules we listen to., gate does indeed hinge on being able to be removed from the table, as it is actually one of its conditions

Wow, really? This is just silly. So they aren't there, yet they can fire weapons, activate powers, be damaged by exploding vehicles, etc?

They are "on the table" in that they are deployed and in play. They are removed from the tabletop as this called a tabletop war game. Using GW grammar to try and twist rules is both silly and universally laughed at as GW has a long and distinguished history of writing vague rules that have never been proofread.

By your logic, someone with a squad of 5, that actually can put them in the transport, is allowed to use this power, but someone using a squad of 10 that cannot fit them in (or has glued doors shut) cannot?!

This is great to know, as all of my transports do have open doors, so mine will be on the table and I gain an advantage as I now have access to an ability and use that no one else does.

EDIT: Page 66 BRB recommends that you have a model "surf" on top of the transport to show that it is in the vehicle. People who follow this suggestion do get to use the power, as per your twisty little logic string, while those that do not cannot? You really think this is RAI?

So going by the logic that an embarked squad does not count as being on the table then they can't hold or contest an objective?

rigeld2 wrote:So they are coexisting with the vehicle which is on the table, but they aren't on the table?
So they're both on the table and not?

... Schrödinger's librarian?

Actually I think it would be "Schrödinger's Law of Embarked Models".

So going by the logic that an embarked squad does not count as being on the table then they can't hold or contest an objective?

Correct. A unit off the table cant hold an objective. Unless there is a rule which says it can, and how it does this. Kind of like the rule for embarked units.

Guys, models removed from the table can and do still interact with the rules, IF there are rules that let them do this interacting. But If a rule you want to use on a unit that is removed from the table says "Remove this unit from the table and place it back" you cant just say you will ignore the first part and change the rule to "Place a unit that is off the table back onto the table"

The unit is not on the table. It is embarked. GW goes out of the way to tell us these things. People wanting GoI to work have all been saying that DESPITE contradicting a rule, the embarked unit is still on the table, because they pretend it is. Sorry, but the rule is obvious, the unit is removed from the table when embarked. There is no ambiguity in GW's rules there.

You are allowed to cast GoI. Once GoI is cast remove the unit from the table.

One of two things now happen:

If you can't remove the unit from the table then the game breaks, as we are not told what to do after this.

Or:

If they are already removed the unit from the table by being embarked, you simply pretend that they were removed and the game works just fine.

If one interpretation breaks the game, and another lets the game go on just fine. we must choose the option that does not break the game.

Lobukia wrote:

Formosa wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

and again no one argues this, we are saying the clearly obvious, that they are not on the table, therefore cannot be removed from it to DS bac in, nothing in that FAQ changes that they are not actually on the table.

To the people saying "The casting of GoI does not hinge on you removing them from the table", sorry but this is wrong, we cant just pick and choose which part of the rules we listen to., gate does indeed hinge on being able to be removed from the table, as it is actually one of its conditions

Wow, really? This is just silly. So they aren't there, yet they can fire weapons, activate powers, be damaged by exploding vehicles, etc?

They are "on the table" in that they are deployed and in play. They are removed from the tabletop as this called a tabletop war game. Using GW grammar to try and twist rules is both silly and universally laughed at as GW has a long and distinguished history of writing vague rules that have never been proofread.

By your logic, someone with a squad of 5, that actually can put them in the transport, is allowed to use this power, but someone using a squad of 10 that cannot fit them in (or has glued doors shut) cannot?!

This is great to know, as all of my transports do have open doors, so mine will be on the table and I gain an advantage as I now have access to an ability and use that no one else does.

EDIT: Page 66 BRB recommends that you have a model "surf" on top of the transport to show that it is in the vehicle. People who follow this suggestion do get to use the power, as per your twisty little logic string, while those that do not cannot? You really think this is RAI?

and once again, they can fire guns use powers etc, because the rules say they can.

they are not on the table because the rules say remove them from the table

the logic your useing there is totally lost on me, at no point have i even refered to the amount of models in a transport, this is a silly useless point i have not made

riding on the roof is to aid you in knowing who is in what, the unit is still off the table as per the rules

The unit is in play and on the table (in the sense of being on the battlefield) for all rules purposes not specified otherwise.

The rules for embarking, movement, shooting, vehicle damage, use of psychic powers and special rules while embarked, holding objectives while embarked, etc. etc. all are consistent on this.

The rules for GoI tell you to remove the models from the table, and this covers both the eventualities that they are or are notembarked in a transport. In the event that they're not (or that one or more are transport-surfing to show they are embarked), you will need to pick up the physical models. In the event that they are not, the unit is still being removed from the area of play.

Formosa, Devian - guess you missed the FAQ saying they coexist.

If one is on th etable then by definition so is the other, as they coexist as far as the rules are concerned.

The unit is in play and on the table (in the sense of being on the battlefield) for all rules purposes not specified otherwise

Mannahnin, why do you believe this? Because, after all, they cant embark another vehicle while embarked, they dont take morale checks, they cant be targeted by things that are not shooting attacks that do not even require LOS, ect ect. All they can do is what the rules say an embarked unit can do--things you pointed out like shooting from a fire point, scoring, disembarking, using a few psychic powers.

After all, you cant even use abilities that require LOS while embarked in a vehicle.

Nos, like I said to Mannahnin, if they coexist, then why is the unit not hit by template attacks on the vehicle? Why does Gate not also remove the vehicles that the libby is coexisting with? No, coexisting DOES NOT mean they are on the table for all rules.

You must not know what the definition of co-exist is.

Gate does not also remove the vehicles that the libby is coexisting with because the libby can not join the vehicle so it can never be a part of the Libby's unit.

The unit is not hit by template attacks on the vehicle because they are not under the template, they are inside of the vehicle that is under the template.

Which of these would you guys use, 1 or 2?

You are allowed to cast GoI. Once GoI is cast remove the unit from the table.

#1: You can't remove the unit from the table so now we are stuck.

Or:

#2: If the models are already removed from the table by being embarked, you simply pretend that they were removed.

Which choice are you going to make?

DevianID wrote:

The unit is in play and on the table (in the sense of being on the battlefield) for all rules purposes not specified otherwise

Mannahnin, why do you believe this? Because, after all, they cant embark another vehicle while embarked, they dont take morale checks, they cant be targeted by things that are not shooting attacks that do not even require LOS, ect ect. All they can do is what the rules say an embarked unit can do--things you pointed out like shooting from a fire point, scoring, disembarking, using a few psychic powers.

Stop and have a look at the things you just posted... and then have a think about the fact that the unit is in a vehicle.

Removing the unit from the table is not intended to remove them from play. It is just to represent the fact that the unit has entered the vehicle.

Nos, like I said to Mannahnin, if they coexist, then why is the unit not hit by template attacks on the vehicle?

Because if the unit was hit by attacks against the vehicle, there would be little point putting units in vehicles...?

Why does Gate not also remove the vehicles that the libby is coexisting with?

Because sharing a space on the board does not make them the same unit.

Devian - because the models arent under the template. Just have a check - are they under? No? Then theyre not hit

You keep referring to the vehicle being removed as well, however you keep failing to remember gate only removes the unit.....

However when asked "are they on the table?" you say "yes", because they coexist with something on the table, and must also be on the table otherwise they cannot be coexisting.

Positionally they coexist. They're still separate units but the vehicle acts as the marker for where the unit is located, for as long as it's embarked.

Devian:
Personal criticisms and condemnations are rude, violations of Rule 1, and make your argument look weaker for having to resort to them. Don't do it. -Mannahnin
Simply put, you destroy my transport and I will claim the squad inside didnt suffer any damage since they are not on the table at the moment of their transports destruction.

Also, how do you explain a GK librarian casting shrouding while moving inside a flying transport...he is according to you not even on the table.


Talk about taking a simple game rule that follows common sense and logic and completely gakking it up and why, to prove REDACTED FOR MORE RUDENESS. -Mannahnin

I'm with Devian on this one. The GoI wording seems to be very precise (much more so than a lot of GW rules). Taken as read, when a unit embarks on a transport it is no longer in play in the same way as foot slogging infantry. The whole "co-existing" thing to me seems very specific for the shooting phase and the act of following the specific rules for firing from transports (hence the use of the word "temporarily"). It doesn't necessarily follow that the unit embarked on a vehicle can do anything that debussed infantry can do.

Regardless of what is intended when one puts a unit in a vehicle, the wording of the rule says that they are taken off the table.

Welp, I'm sorta interested here just so's I can figure out of my Veil of Darkness crypteks attached to my Immortals can vorpal out of a Night Scythe if things get sticky.

I'm not sure yet, need more posts with apples...

Temporarily means "until you disembark"

Flinty wrote:Taken as read, when a unit embarks on a transport it is no longer in play in the same way as foot slogging infantry.

Except that's not really true. They're still in play, they just don't interact with anything that requires LOS (other than shooting attacks if the vehicle has fire points) and can't be directly targeted by most in game effects due to being inside a vehicle.

They're still 'on the board'. You just remove the physical models, because there is no room to cram them inside the transport vehicle in most cases.

insaniak wrote:

Flinty wrote:Taken as read, when a unit embarks on a transport it is no longer in play in the same way as foot slogging infantry.

Except that's not really true. They're still in play, they just don't interact with anything that requires LOS (other than shooting attacks if the vehicle has fire points) and can't be directly targeted by most in game effects due to being inside a vehicle.

They're still 'on the board'. You just remove the physical models, because there is no room to cram them inside the transport vehicle in most cases.

Except there no on the board, as the embarkation rules tell us there not, being unable to cram them into a transport has nothing to do with it.

Devian:
Personal criticisms and condemnations are rude, violations of Rule 1, and make your argument look weaker for having to resort to them. Don't do it. -Mannahnin
Simply put, you destroy my transport and I will claim the squad inside didnt suffer any damage since they are not on the table at the moment of their transports destruction.

Also, how do you explain a GK librarian casting shrouding while moving inside a flying transport...he is according to you not even on the table.


Talk about taking a simple game rule that follows common sense and logic and completely gakking it up and why, to prove REDACTED FOR MORE RUDENESS. -Mannahnin

this is all well and good, however the things you have stated are covered by the rules that tell you how a unit interacts with a transport, this is why were saying to remove an already removed unit isnt possible.

the way it works seems to be this

Cast gate (as you are allowed, nothing bars the power being used)
Remove unit from the table and then imediatly deep strike it back in, now this is where it breaks down, as the unit has already been removed from the table, it cant be removed again.

Now short of a new FAQ i cant see any other way of doing this

So casting while in a transport breaks the game?

Simply put, you destroy my transport and I will claim the squad inside didnt suffer any damage since they are not on the table at the moment of their transports...

Well we know that units embarked in a transport take a S4 hit (each model individually on a 4+) in closed topped vehicles and a 3+ in open topped vehicles... So you are definitely wrong there. To me not knowing such a simple rule or choosing to ignore it doesn't help your case much at all. In fact I'd go as far to say this shows you don't understand.

So a unit that is not on the table can take damage?