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.

Cheexsta wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
How many infantry are embarked?

Edit: If a rule tells you that a container has a capacity limit of 3 bricks does that limit the number of cookies it can hold? No.

However, if you lack a rule to say that the container may carry cookies, then you are not allowed to carry those cookies in the container.

If rules change those bricks into cookies while the bricks are in the container...

There's no direct statement of permission but it's rules that put them in there.

Rules say these infantry can embark in the transport
Rules say the infantry turn into beasts
Rules say these beasts are in the Transport

Since it's rules that cause the unit of beasts to be embarked you'd need to find denial for them to exist in that state. Not having per mission for beasts to embark doesn't do it because beasts did not embark. A capacity limit of one unit of infantry doesn't deny it because they're not infantry.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I would play it as the CoC rule. They fall out of the transport growling and flailing just in time so that they do not break the game.

I'm in this camp as well. Without exceptions to allow them to stay in the transport the transport isn't allowed to carry models without the Infantry characteristic. Because that's replaces by the Beast characteristic the Possessed aren't allowed to be in the vehicle anymore. The only logical recourse is then they disembark (or emergency disembark if they've somehow been boxed in, and if they can't do that then they're destroyed).

Clearly models have unit types, and the unit type within the unit can be different from model to model. So what defines an "infantry unit"? Who is to stay that such a unit stops being an "infantry unit" if there are no longer any models with the unit type infantry within it?

I'd suggest that in RAW there is no such thing as an "infantry unit" and that statement causes a significant number of problems within the rules. Clearly not how it should be player, nor how it was intended just more evidence there is no RAW solution to this problem.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Clearly models have unit types, and the unit type within the unit can be different from model to model. So what defines an "infantry unit"? Who is to stay that such a unit stops being an "infantry unit" if there are no longer any models with the unit type infantry within it?

I'm pretty sure the rule itself says they stop being infantry models becuase the infantry type is replaced with the beast type (temporarily). They don't get both types, one clearly replaces the other. And because it replaces it (temporarily) they can't claim to be an "infantry unit".

 DJGietzen wrote:
I'd suggest that in RAW there is no such thing as an "infantry unit" and that statement causes a significant number of problems within the rules. Clearly not how it should be player, nor how it was intended just more evidence there is no RAW solution to this problem.

And Infantry unit is clearly a unit made of Infantry models.To go that far into over-reading it by claiming it doesn't exist because the book doesn't explain basic English is rather silly and pedantic.

Transport limitations are only checked when a unit is embarking. Once it is legally embarked, there are no rules that say anything happens to that unit while embarked. The unit would stay there until it disembarked, at which time it could not reembark unless its unit type changed again.

Fragile wrote:
Transport limitations are only checked when a unit is embarking. Once it is legally embarked, there are no rules that say anything happens to that unit while embarked. The unit would stay there until it disembarked, at which time it could not reembark unless its unit type changed again.

And if that was the case a Champ turned into a Spawn or a Daemon Prince could stay in a transport once turned but the rules clearly stated they do not, creating precedent for the Possessed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Transport limitations are only checked when a unit is embarking. Once it is legally embarked, there are no rules that say anything happens to that unit while embarked. The unit would stay there until it disembarked, at which time it could not reembark unless its unit type changed again.

And if that was the case a Champ turned into a Spawn or a Daemon Prince could stay in a transport once turned but the rules clearly stated they do not, creating precedent for the Possessed.

And where in the rule for Possessed is that line? Using CSM as precedence that line would have been included in the rule.

Fragile wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Transport limitations are only checked when a unit is embarking. Once it is legally embarked, there are no rules that say anything happens to that unit while embarked. The unit would stay there until it disembarked, at which time it could not reembark unless its unit type changed again.

And if that was the case a Champ turned into a Spawn or a Daemon Prince could stay in a transport once turned but the rules clearly stated they do not, creating precedent for the Possessed.

And where in the rule for Possessed is that line? Using CSM as precedence that line would have been included in the rule.

How about in using the rules of Codex CSM in addition to the rules of the Supplement. It's not in Slaves to the Voices, but does apply to supplement as a whole.

Your taking a specific rule and trying to apply it to everywhere without permission to do so.

Due to the ability to give their transport shrouded to me it seems like they intend you to have the choice to put them in a transport. If this rule forced them to disembark it means putting them in a transport is entirely useless (not that its a great option even if they remain when beasts). For me the RaI seems to strongly indicate that they remain on board (no instruction given to disembark). Though I think there is a big hole in the rules here that just don't really govern this situation.

Fragile wrote:
Your taking a specific rule and trying to apply it to everywhere without permission to do so.

A specific rule involving very similar circumstances involving models whose type changes.

Also from a RaW point of view literally no rules tell you to disembark. Either:

1) You break no rules by being embarked as your were allowed to embark and you still do not have more than 1 infantry unit embarked.
Or

2) You are only allowed upto 1 infantry unit and zero other types of unit embarked at which point you've broken this rule. You have 2 ways to proceed either declare the CS player the loser as he is fielding an illegal unit and therefore cheating. Or the game hangs as a rule is broken and we have no way to fix it. Disembarking further breaks the rule as you can't disembark from a transport you are not in and the unit can not be in the transport (never exceed).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Your taking a specific rule and trying to apply it to everywhere without permission to do so.

A specific rule involving very similar circumstances involving models whose type changes.

However CoC also creates a new unit. A similar rule with specific instructions on how the handle their situation, this rule lacks that. It could make a good basis for a Houserule but it needlessly nerfs CSM transports when otherwise they could be almost useable.

The rule making transports worse or not doesn't really fit RAW arguments, but stands as a motive to argue intent.

Yes I was arguing intent in that instance as I clearly spelt out "to me it seems like they intend".

As for RaW there is literally no rules telling you to disembark. As I pointed out the RaW in my other post.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes I was arguing intent in that instance as I clearly spelt out "to me it seems like they intend".

As for RaW there is literally no rules telling you to disembark. As I pointed out the RaW in my other post.

RAW doesn't really support them staying inside without an exception that we don't have right now either.

HIWPI: forced disembark unless my opponent was comfortable with letting them stay inside.

RAW: It's a train wreck.

As stated you can interpret it RaW so no rule is broken or you can interpret it that the game breaks. There is no valid RaW that they are forced to disembark.

RAW is that they stay on board. There is nothing making them disembark.

Alright, I'm home and have my rulebook handy so let's look this over all the way. This is strictly RAW speaking.

First for the statement that there aren't "Infantry Units" in the game. Page 44, "Unit Types" , the very first one is "Infantry". So yes, there are "Infantry Units".

Now, while there is a constraint to prevent non-Infantry units from embarking I do believe there is a RAW regarding the Possessed being on the transport. And here's why (emphasis mine)

Rulebook Page 78 wrote:A Transport can carry a single Infantry 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.

So why am I referencing this? Because the problem isn't that the Transport is not allowed to carry a unit of Beasts unless they have permission otherwise (which at the moment they do not). It doesn't give any exceptions in the core rulebook to allow a unit of beasts to stay in the vehicle, nor does it mention that the only time the unit type matters is upon embarking. Once the unit becomes beasts the Transport is then violating it's own rules on what can be inside of it. Because the vehicle can't carry a unit of beasts there is only one logical recourse to "fix' the issue: remove the unit from the vehicle. The only ways to remove a unit from a vehicle is by disembarking.

Does this fly in the face of the possible RAI based on the Slaves to the Voices rule? Yes. But from a strict reading of the rules the conclusion I reach, as per RAW, is that they need to get out of their ride.

While that sentence is correct, it is telling you that only a single unit +ICs can be carried. That paragraph is about the capacity.

The next paragraph is the more relevant rule. "Only Infantry models can embark......"

If RAW is they must get out... citation please?

RAW they may not go beast-mode and then get in a transport... but nowhere does it say they must get out. The limit is only on embarking.

FlingitNow wrote:Also from a RaW point of view literally no rules tell you to disembark. Either:

1) You break no rules by being embarked as your were allowed to embark and you still do not have more than 1 infantry unit embarked.
Or

2) You are only allowed upto 1 infantry unit and zero other types of unit embarked at which point you've broken this rule. You have 2 ways to proceed either declare the CS player the loser as he is fielding an illegal unit and therefore cheating. Or the game hangs as a rule is broken and we have no way to fix it. Disembarking further breaks the rule as you can't disembark from a transport you are not in and the unit can not be in the transport (never exceed).

There is no stated capacity limit for beasts, only infantry. That rule is worded in a way to make it exclusive to infantry so there is no capacity limit for any other unit type. Beasts, not being denied, are in fact permitted in a round about way through the shifting unit type.
-They are permitted to embark
-They are permitted to turn into beasts while embarked
-Permission found, check for denial... none found, proceed.

As far as the unit type vs model unit type. Can a unit of infantry be considered a unit of infantry if there are no more infantry models left in it? I would say no but others would say yes and there are reasons to support both opinions. That's a whole new can of worms.

Fragile wrote:
While that sentence is correct, it is telling you that only a single unit +ICs can be carried. That paragraph is about the capacity.

The next paragraph is the more relevant rule. "Only Infantry models can embark......"

If RAW is they must get out... citation please?

While it does talk about capacity, it also specifies the kind of unit that can be inside of the vehicle, which is why it's important. It's not just a limitation numericaly, but by unit type as well.

And because Beasts violate that capacity rule (not Infantry and there is no exception listed in the rules) they can't stay inside the vehicle as the vehicle isn't allowed to carry them. The only solutions then are the unit is disembarked, or destroyed (as it can't be in a place it's not allowed to be). Disembarked seems the more reasonable recourse.

Reasonable sure, but your making up rules. The embarkation was legal. It was an infantry when it got on. There is nothing that requires it to get out if it changes.

Fragile wrote:
Reasonable sure, but your making up rules. The embarkation was legal. It was an infantry when it got on. There is nothing that requires it to get out if it changes.

You have a unit that is not allowed to be inside the transport because it's unit type changed and you're saying taking the unit out of the transport to fix the issue is "making up rules" when we have an obvious problem? I freely admit there is no rule that says they have to get out, but the fact remains that we have a legitimate rules conflict and the only resolution that solves it is taking the unit out of the transport. I fail to see how this is not a valid solution to the problem, a rule in the rulebook or not.

First for the statement that there aren't "Infantry Units" in the game. Page 44, "Unit Types" , the very first one is "Infantry". So yes, there are "Infantry Units". 

I think you need to read that again. Unit types are a classification of models not units. So no there is no real definition of "Infantry Units". Common assumptions are that an "Infantry Unit" is a unit entirely composed of models with the unit type Infantry, a unit where the majority of models have the unit type Infantry or a unit where at least one model has the unit type Infantry. The most common being the first, all could claim to be equally valid RaW.

So why am I referencing this? Because the problem isn't that the Transport is not allowed to carry a unit of Beasts unless they have permission otherwise (which at the moment they do not). It doesn't give any exceptions in the core rulebook to allow a unit of beasts to stay in the vehicle, nor does it mention that the only time the unit type matters is upon embarking. Once the unit becomes beasts the Transport is then violating it's own rules on what can be inside of it. 

Well you could argue that you could equally argue nothing says a beast unit can not be embarked only that it can not embark. There is a limit of 1 infantry unit (whatever that means) but no limit for other types of unit, just an implied limit of zero.

Because the vehicle can't carry a unit of beasts there is only one logical recourse to "fix' the issue: remove the unit from the vehicle. The only ways to remove a unit from a vehicle is by disembarking. 

This is where you start making up rules entirely. If we go with your interpretation of the Beasts can not be embarked on the transport check the wording immediately preceeding what you posted "can never be exceeded". Thus disembarking the unit still breaks this rule. Having got out of the transport means you have entered play from an illegal position so this is still not acceptable RaW. Making up rules like "you must disembark from some where you can't be" is not RaW. If you're having to do that your actual interpretation is that RaW is broken. If that is the case the other valid RaW reading that doesn't break the game seems like the best way to go to me.

 FlingitNow wrote:

First for the statement that there aren't "Infantry Units" in the game. Page 44, "Unit Types" , the very first one is "Infantry". So yes, there are "Infantry Units". 

I think you need to read that again. Unit types are a classification of models not units. So no there is no real definition of "Infantry Units". Common assumptions are that an "Infantry Unit" is a unit entirely composed of models with the unit type Infantry, a unit where the majority of models have the unit type Infantry or a unit where at least one model has the unit type Infantry. The most common being the first, all could claim to be equally valid RaW.

Considering that the chapter is called "Unit Types" I believe that it's safe to say that you can draw the conclusion that "Infantry Units" are a unit type, one made of models with the Infantry characteristic.

It was mostly to just point out the faulty logic of claiming "Infantry Units" don't exist.

 FlingitNow wrote:

So why am I referencing this? Because the problem isn't that the Transport is not allowed to carry a unit of Beasts unless they have permission otherwise (which at the moment they do not). It doesn't give any exceptions in the core rulebook to allow a unit of beasts to stay in the vehicle, nor does it mention that the only time the unit type matters is upon embarking. Once the unit becomes beasts the Transport is then violating it's own rules on what can be inside of it. 

Well you could argue that you could equally argue nothing says a beast unit can not be embarked only that it can not embark. There is a limit of 1 infantry unit (whatever that means) but no limit for other types of unit, just an implied limit of zero.

As is often mentioned that 40k is a Permissive Ruleset I'd say that it's not an "implied limit" as no permission exists to allow that unit to be there normally. It doesn't matter how the unit got there, it's not given permission to be there anymore.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because the vehicle can't carry a unit of beasts there is only one logical recourse to "fix' the issue: remove the unit from the vehicle. The only ways to remove a unit from a vehicle is by disembarking. 

This is where you start making up rules entirely. If we go with your interpretation of the Beasts can not be embarked on the transport check the wording immediately preceeding what you posted "can never be exceeded". Thus disembarking the unit still breaks this rule. Having got out of the transport means you have entered play from an illegal position so this is still not acceptable RaW. Making up rules like "you must disembark from some where you can't be" is not RaW. If you're having to do that your actual interpretation is that RaW is broken. If that is the case the other valid RaW reading that doesn't break the game seems like the best way to go to me.

I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was a solution. If the unit can't be in the transport then something needs to be done to correct the issue. RAW is broken (something I mentioned before) and the most straightforward patch is to have them disembark. Another one would be to have the unit be destroyed as it can't be there (much like if it was in impassable terrain for example).

The other "valid" RAW reading ignores the nature of the rules and whole portion about what kind of units can be inside of Transports (barring exceptions made in codexes or unit entries).

Just because it's an "easier" interpretation doesn't make it a "correct" one.

Oh, and by your own argument, even under the alternate reading you're proposing the unit still can't disembark. So don't stick them in a Land Raider because they'll get stuck there if they go Beasts the turn you're planning on disembarking them for an assault. Still broken.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Reasonable sure, but your making up rules. The embarkation was legal. It was an infantry when it got on. There is nothing that requires it to get out if it changes.

You have a unit that is not allowed to be inside the transport because it's unit type changed and you're saying taking the unit out of the transport to fix the issue is "making up rules" when we have an obvious problem? I freely admit there is no rule that says they have to get out, but the fact remains that we have a legitimate rules conflict and the only resolution that solves it is taking the unit out of the transport. I fail to see how this is not a valid solution to the problem, a rule in the rulebook or not.

How do you know its not allowed in the transport? You've made that part up. How do you know you are allowed to remove them from the transport? You've made that part up as well.

Just because each model in the unit is no longer has the infantry unit type does not necessarily mean they are no longer an infantry unit in any respect. You can't point to a rule that defines an infantry unit. You can't point to a rule that gives you permission to 'fix' something when that something is "impossible",

 DJGietzen wrote:
How do you know its not allowed in the transport? You've made that part up. How do you know you are allowed to remove them from the transport? You've made that part up as well.

They unit types listed as being permitted in the transport are Infantry and Independent Characters who are Infantry. That's it. That's all the capacity allows inside the vehicle as per it's own rules. I didn't "make that up", I just didn't ignore the inconvenient evidence that'd make the unit better.

As for removing them from a transport I did not say that was a rule, I said that was a way to solve the problem of a rule being broken. If you'd prefer another way is having the unit destroyed as it can't exist there and it can't get out (without some concession at least). Yippee.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Just because each model in the unit is no longer has the infantry unit type does not necessarily mean they are no longer an infantry unit in any respect. You can't point to a rule that defines an infantry unit. You can't point to a rule that gives you permission to 'fix' something when that something is "impossible",

Slaves to the Voices:
Beast Form: The unit's type changes from Infantry to Beasts.

The unit stops being Infantry completely until the start of your next turn. It no longer has the Infantry type and now has the Beast type instead. Now I ask you to stop "making things up" as you're trying to create a situation that doesn't exist that gives the unit both the "Beast" and "Infantry" types at the same time.

Please read that section particularly pay attention to paragraph 4 of page 44. Unit Type is something that applies to models.

Yes 40k is permissive the unit had permission to embark and permission to change unit type. You now need a restriction on them being there or a rule that forces them to disembark. You have at best an implied restriction on them being there and enforcing that implied restriction breaks the game. Your solution as you've finally admitted is just made up rules and HYWPI which is fine but don't claim it is the RaW it is not.

There is a restriction on infantry embarking there is no restriction on unit type for disembarking. I'm not claiming we should go with the easier interpretation just going with the one that doesn't break the game seems to make sense to me and also doesn't break any rules and appears to be the designers intent. As opposed to an interpretation that breaks the game and forces you to make up extra rules and breaks what appears to be the intent. That is entirely nonsensical to me.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes 40k is permission the unit had permission to embark and permission to change unit type. You now need a restriction on them being there or a rule that forces them to disembark. You have at best an implied restriction on them being there and enforcing that implied restriction breaks the game. Your solution as you've finally admitted is just made up rules and HYWPI which is fine but don't claim it is the RaW it is not.

Restriction is not implied if no permission is given for them to continue being there. That leaves us at a point in the rules where a problem exists. The unit can't be in the vehicle because the vehicle doesn't have the permission to carry Beasts. That leaves us with 3 choices: 1) Disembark. Not a rule, just a way to play it. 2) Unit can stay inside. ALSO not a rule, but a way to play it, despite it violating the permission the vehicle has on what kind of units can be inside of it. 3) Unit is destroyed because it's illegally placed. Probably the only 100% RAW to play it but I don't think anyone wants to follow this as you potentially throw the unit away 1/3 of the time when they're embarked.

 FlingitNow wrote:
There is a restriction on infantry embarking there is no restriction on unit type for disembarking. I'm not claiming we should go with the easier interpretation just going with the one that doesn't break the game seems to make sense to me and also doesn't break any rules and appears to be the designers intent. As opposed to an interpretation that breaks the game and forces you to make up extra rules and breaks what appears to be the intent. That is entirely nonsensical to me.

I find it hilarious that I'm be accused of making rules up when I never claimed the disembark was required by the rules. I said by the rules the unit can't be in the vehicle. That was not a lie, and my HIWPI involved disembarking as it clears up the rules issue, your's is that they stay inside which still violates the rule. The unit had permission to enter the vehicle, and to change, but without specific permission to stay inside the vehicle there is nothing to allow them to be there when the unit type changes. The unit types allowed inside of the vehicle is not "implied" it's clearly stated to be Infantry. Not Infantry and "whatever they turn into" just Infantry. That's a legitimate issue with how the rules stand right now. Any solution involving disembarking, or keeping them inside is a house rule. Any claim that there is some kind of implied permission to stay inside is a house rule. Any claim that "just because they don't say I can't" doesn't fit into this game system and shouldn't be in this forum.

Now I emailed this issue into gamefaqs@gwplc.com just in case they actually might at least update the digital copies of the codex to fix this. I highly suggest others do too just incase we actually get a real resolution so it can actually be "Frequently Asked".