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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
There is not such thing as being Tactical Reserves. Never has been in 8th and never will be. All the Tactical Reserves rule is limit how many units can be not on the battlefield and also kills them if they are not on by turn 3. There isn't some magical space that exists for units in Reserves like there was in previous editions.

The word "Reserve" is capitalized in the Tactical Reserves blub. In the English language, words in mid sentence that are capitalized denotes that they are proper nouns or proper names, in which case signifies that it is a unique entity as opposed to common class of entities. For the game purposes, it is a collective term for all reinforcement locales such as in teleportarium, high orbit, ambush, webway, etc.

mmimzie wrote:
Importantly. I think if you say the dudes inside said transports are not on the battlefield. They'd all die turn 3 if they never get out of thier transport, as none of them would have counted as being on the table at any point.

This can be taken further in that the units set up in the transports could be considered set up in reserves as they are set up in some way that lets them arrive mid battle and also count as ahving moved when set up. Thus only half your units could be set up in this way meaning any all transport armies would have to be 1:1 units and transports.

As such you really have to decide do folks in transports die on turn 3 if they never got out (sorry open topped transports), Or do you count them toward units deployed on the battle friend..

It's not just that. It would mean that, if the embarked unit counts as being set up in reserves, then when any unit disembarks a unit that has a special rule for shooting at units that just came out of reserves (Coteaz's rule, etc) will be able to shoot at the disembarking unit. You have to ask whether GW really intended that to be the case.

This honestly comes down to the following arugment.

"Are units in transports considered to be on the battlefield."

Because if you look at the rule posted on page one, it does not say 50% of your units need to be on the board, it says 50% of your units need to be on the 'battlefield' so does inside a transport count as the battlefield.

IMO yes, being inside a transport thats on the board counts as that unit being on the battlefield.

skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
There is not such thing as being Tactical Reserves. Never has been in 8th and never will be. All the Tactical Reserves rule is limit how many units can be not on the battlefield and also kills them if they are not on by turn 3. There isn't some magical space that exists for units in Reserves like there was in previous editions.

The word "Reserve" is capitalized in the Tactical Reserves blub. In the English language, words in mid sentence that are capitalized denotes that they are proper nouns or proper names, in which case signifies that it is a unique entity as opposed to common class of entities. For the game purposes, it is a collective term for all reinforcement locales such as in teleportarium, high orbit, ambush, webway, etc.

one such local could be in a transport.

doctortom wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
Importantly. I think if you say the dudes inside said transports are not on the battlefield. They'd all die turn 3 if they never get out of thier transport, as none of them would have counted as being on the table at any point.

This can be taken further in that the units set up in the transports could be considered set up in reserves as they are set up in some way that lets them arrive mid battle and also count as ahving moved when set up. Thus only half your units could be set up in this way meaning any all transport armies would have to be 1:1 units and transports.

As such you really have to decide do folks in transports die on turn 3 if they never got out (sorry open topped transports), Or do you count them toward units deployed on the battle friend..

It's not just that. It would mean that, if the embarked unit counts as being set up in reserves, then when any unit disembarks a unit that has a special rule for shooting at units that just came out of reserves (Coteaz's rule, etc) will be able to shoot at the disembarking unit. You have to ask whether GW really intended that to be the case.

Backspacehacker wrote:This honestly comes down to the following arugment.

"Are units in transports considered to be on the battlefield."

Because if you look at the rule posted on page one, it does not say 50% of your units need to be on the board, it says 50% of your units need to be on the 'battlefield' so does inside a transport count as the battlefield.

IMO yes, being inside a transport thats on the board counts as that unit being on the battlefield.

So as such it's about your charitability and how you'd rule it and play it.

If i was sticking hard and fast to the rules i'd say transports are affected by the 50% deal, and you could argue with me of if the dudes in the transport have to die.

the only other way to play the rule would be to consider the models in a transport as on the battle field, and then play the game from there. However, you are disreguarding abit of the wording of the transport rules that pretty explicitly state that models in a transport arent on the battle field in pure game terms.

Where does it sate that it you are in a transport you are no longer on the battlefield?

Backspacehacker wrote:Where does it sate that it you are in a transport you are no longer on the battlefield?

Here you go. Being embarked puts you in a status that is expressly not on the battle field.

skchsan wrote:
Via transport: embarking - '... remove the models from the battlefield...'
Via transport: disembarking - '... set it up on the battlefield...'

As per RAW, the act of embarking sets a unit onto "off battlefield" state where it can be restored to "on battlefield" state upon disembarking.

Ok there we go then.

mmimzie wrote:

skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
There is not such thing as being Tactical Reserves. Never has been in 8th and never will be. All the Tactical Reserves rule is limit how many units can be not on the battlefield and also kills them if they are not on by turn 3. There isn't some magical space that exists for units in Reserves like there was in previous editions.

The word "Reserve" is capitalized in the Tactical Reserves blub. In the English language, words in mid sentence that are capitalized denotes that they are proper nouns or proper names, in which case signifies that it is a unique entity as opposed to common class of entities. For the game purposes, it is a collective term for all reinforcement locales such as in teleportarium, high orbit, ambush, webway, etc.

one such local could be in a transport.

doctortom wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
Importantly. I think if you say the dudes inside said transports are not on the battlefield. They'd all die turn 3 if they never get out of thier transport, as none of them would have counted as being on the table at any point.

This can be taken further in that the units set up in the transports could be considered set up in reserves as they are set up in some way that lets them arrive mid battle and also count as ahving moved when set up. Thus only half your units could be set up in this way meaning any all transport armies would have to be 1:1 units and transports.

As such you really have to decide do folks in transports die on turn 3 if they never got out (sorry open topped transports), Or do you count them toward units deployed on the battle friend..

It's not just that. It would mean that, if the embarked unit counts as being set up in reserves, then when any unit disembarks a unit that has a special rule for shooting at units that just came out of reserves (Coteaz's rule, etc) will be able to shoot at the disembarking unit. You have to ask whether GW really intended that to be the case.

Backspacehacker wrote:This honestly comes down to the following arugment.

"Are units in transports considered to be on the battlefield."

Because if you look at the rule posted on page one, it does not say 50% of your units need to be on the board, it says 50% of your units need to be on the 'battlefield' so does inside a transport count as the battlefield.

IMO yes, being inside a transport thats on the board counts as that unit being on the battlefield.

So as such it's about your charitability and how you'd rule it and play it.

If i was sticking hard and fast to the rules i'd say transports are affected by the 50% deal, and you could argue with me of if the dudes in the transport have to die.

the only other way to play the rule would be to consider the models in a transport as on the battle field, and then play the game from there. However, you are disreguarding abit of the wording of the transport rules that pretty explicitly state that models in a transport arent on the battle field in pure game terms.

I'm only arguing if they count as reserves or reinforcements, which is not completely the same as whether they're on or off the battlefield. By hard RAW they are not on the battlefield ("remove the unit from the battlefield" for embarking makes that clear), but that does not mean they are in reserves. My comment was more a followup to skchsan's post where he was talking about off board/ not in reserves vs off board/ in reserves (counting as reinforcements). If you treat them as being in reserves then they are treated as reinforcements even if they started the game on the board and later embarked. This is just looking at the consequences of someone making the interpretation embarked = reserves/reinforcements, to point out that the interpretation probably isn't correct.

The problem is reserves in the rules isn't a thing the tactical reserves rule does not expressly talk about stuff being in reserves it only cares if stuff is on the battle field or not. That's all it says and that's pretty much all it looks at.

No where is there a distinction made between off the board/not in reserves

The rules does not make this distinction.

Literally the state as follows:
50% of your total number of units in your army have to be on the battle field.

There are units that exist known as reinforcements. These units can't move or advance when they arrive, but can otherwise at normally. However such units are considered as having moved for all rules purposes.

Units that haven't arrived on the battle field by the end of round 3 die.

Being embarked is not on the battle field.





That's it. Then is the rules as they are spelled out in the book, and all of which had been quoted here repeatedly.

Again being charitable there is a fringe argument that can be used to exclude units in transports from dying at the end of round 3.

Maybe they should change the rule to state that any units embarked in a transport must be physically jammed into every space in the model. Just so everyone is aware what's "on the battlefield". Ridiculous. Fortifications and transports are useless after turn 3 because GW doesn't make models you can physically put your models inside, and instead wrote into the rules a logical way to just set them off to the side until they disembark. makes sense.

That "fringe argument" being sheer common sense?

Examples of "Reserves" in the rules:

07/2017 WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.1

Q: In the narrative play missions that use the Reserves mission rule, what happens with units such as Terminators that have abilities that allow them to be set up on the battlefield midbattle? Can they be set up at the end of any Movement phase, as indicated by the ability, or can they only do so when they arrive from Reserves?
A: If the unit is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield (for instance, in a teleportarium chamber) then it is only set up on the battlefield when it arrives from Reserves.

Terminators arrive from Reserves.

[off battlefield, in transport] is distinct from [off battlefield, in reserves].

By the extension of your argument that all off battlefield status is the same, then a unit of termies embarked on a land raider can choose to be "set up on the battlefield" via deep strike rather than disembarking.

mmimzie wrote:
The problem is reserves in the rules isn't a thing the tactical reserves rule does not expressly talk about stuff being in reserves it only cares if stuff is on the battle field or not. That's all it says and that's pretty much all it looks at.

No where is there a distinction made between off the board/not in reserves

The rules does not make this distinction.

Literally the state as follows:
50% of your total number of units in your army have to be on the battle field.

Yes, I never disputed the 50% being on the battlefield rule. You don't need to act like I did.
.

mmimzie wrote:
There are units that exist known as reinforcements. These units can't move or advance when they arrive, but can otherwise at normally. However such units are considered as having moved for all rules purposes.

Yet units that disembark can move after disembarking. So, it doesn't necessarily fit as reinforcements.

mmimzie wrote:
Units that haven't arrived on the battle field by the end of round 3 die.

Being embarked is not on the battle field.

They say about reinforcements "Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleports, grav shutes or other, more esoteric means." Stepping out from the inside of a vehicle doesn't sound like a "more esoteric" means. We still have disembarked units getting to move after disembarking, which reinforcements say they don't get to do. So, are they really reinforcements? Does that mean Coteaz gets to take free shots at any unit disembarking from a vehicle?

If a model/unit has been on the board prior to boarding/entering a fortress then the turn 3 rule doesn't matter.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If a model/unit has been on the board prior to boarding/entering a fortress then the turn 3 rule doesn't matter.

Coteaz getting to fire at disembarking units would still matter, however.

 doctortom wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
The problem is reserves in the rules isn't a thing the tactical reserves rule does not expressly talk about stuff being in reserves it only cares if stuff is on the battle field or not. That's all it says and that's pretty much all it looks at.

No where is there a distinction made between off the board/not in reserves

The rules does not make this distinction.

Literally the state as follows:
50% of your total number of units in your army have to be on the battle field.

Yes, I never disputed the 50% being on the battlefield rule. You don't need to act like I did.
.

mmimzie wrote:
There are units that exist known as reinforcements. These units can't move or advance when they arrive, but can otherwise at normally. However such units are considered as having moved for all rules purposes.

Yet units that disembark can move after disembarking. So, it doesn't necessarily fit as reinforcements.

mmimzie wrote:
Units that haven't arrived on the battle field by the end of round 3 die.

Being embarked is not on the battle field.

They say about reinforcements "Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleports, grav shutes or other, more esoteric means." Stepping out from the inside of a vehicle doesn't sound like a "more esoteric" means. We still have disembarked units getting to move after disembarking, which reinforcements say they don't get to do. So, are they really reinforcements? Does that mean Coteaz gets to take free shots at any unit disembarking from a vehicle?

One I never said you that you said anything about the 50% bit. I was only stating for completeness.

So now your getting off my argument. Votes is pretty specific that you get to shoot stuff that sets up on the battle field after the game begins and dismebarking literally sets up models on the battle field after the game begins...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That "fringe argument" being sheer common sense?

Which apparently has no place here because everyone seems to prefer an unplayable game.

I miss the old YMDC days, where things like this were figured out so GW could fix it and a sensible RAI could be arrived at, not descent into pedantry and lunacy.

WindstormSCR wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That "fringe argument" being sheer common sense?

Which apparently has no place here because everyone seems to prefer an unplayable game.

I miss the old YMDC days, where things like this were figured out so GW could fix it and a sensible RAI could be arrived at, not descent into pedantry and lunacy.

Hear, hear. I'll take a sensible solution for a playable game over 'being right on the internet' any day.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

WindstormSCR wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That "fringe argument" being sheer common sense?

Which apparently has no place here because everyone seems to prefer an unplayable game.

I miss the old YMDC days, where things like this were figured out so GW could fix it and a sensible RAI could be arrived at, not descent into pedantry and lunacy.

Hear, hear. I'll take a sensible solution for a playable game over 'being right on the internet' any day.

Again even then that argument is only for them not dying. While as I've said I'd probably play it that way.

mmimzie wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

WindstormSCR wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That "fringe argument" being sheer common sense?

Which apparently has no place here because everyone seems to prefer an unplayable game.

I miss the old YMDC days, where things like this were figured out so GW could fix it and a sensible RAI could be arrived at, not descent into pedantry and lunacy.

Hear, hear. I'll take a sensible solution for a playable game over 'being right on the internet' any day.

Again even then that argument is only for them not dying. While as I've said I'd probably play it that way.

Mminzie, sorry but you're the only one that's discussing an off topic while quoting others' posts - the entire second page of this post has been dedicated by others in trying to understand exactly what is it that you're arguing about. Please refer to the OP for the actual discussion at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Examples of "Reserves" in the rules:

07/2017 WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.1

Q: In the narrative play missions that use the Reserves mission rule, what happens with units such as Terminators that have abilities that allow them to be set up on the battlefield midbattle? Can they be set up at the end of any Movement phase, as indicated by the ability, or can they only do so when they arrive from Reserves?
A: If the unit is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield (for instance, in a teleportarium chamber) then it is only set up on the battlefield when it arrives from Reserves.

Terminators arrive from Reserves.

[off battlefield, in transport] is distinct from [off battlefield, in reserves].

By the extension of your argument that all off battlefield status is the same, then a unit of termies embarked on a land raider can choose to be "set up on the battlefield" via deep strike rather than disembarking.

And if you don't mind, could you explain to me exactly as to how your argument would prevent such case from happening?

There are currently two main thoughts/opinions present in this thread:
1. RAW, units embarked on a transport is 'removed from the battlefield' therefore do not count towards having units set up on the battlefield for the calculations for tactical reserves & markedly, the wording on the tactical reserves rule applies to any units that are off battlefield, therefore the 3rd turn penalty applies to units in transports.
2. The above interpretation of RAW makes the game unplayable/less enjoyable, therefore, it would not be HIWPI.

No one here is arguing that units embarked on transports DO count towards having models set up on the battlefield as per RAW.

 skchsan wrote:

mmimzie wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

WindstormSCR wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That "fringe argument" being sheer common sense?

Which apparently has no place here because everyone seems to prefer an unplayable game.

I miss the old YMDC days, where things like this were figured out so GW could fix it and a sensible RAI could be arrived at, not descent into pedantry and lunacy.

Hear, hear. I'll take a sensible solution for a playable game over 'being right on the internet' any day.

Again even then that argument is only for them not dying. While as I've said I'd probably play it that way.

Mminzie, sorry but you're the only one that's discussing an off topic while quoting others' posts - the entire second page of this post has been dedicated by others in trying to understand exactly what is it that you're arguing about. Please refer to the OP for the actual discussion at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Examples of "Reserves" in the rules:

07/2017 WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.1

Q: In the narrative play missions that use the Reserves mission rule, what happens with units such as Terminators that have abilities that allow them to be set up on the battlefield midbattle? Can they be set up at the end of any Movement phase, as indicated by the ability, or can they only do so when they arrive from Reserves?
A: If the unit is deployed somewhere other than the battlefield (for instance, in a teleportarium chamber) then it is only set up on the battlefield when it arrives from Reserves.

Terminators arrive from Reserves.

[off battlefield, in transport] is distinct from [off battlefield, in reserves].

By the extension of your argument that all off battlefield status is the same, then a unit of termies embarked on a land raider can choose to be "set up on the battlefield" via deep strike rather than disembarking.

And if you don't mind, could you explain to me exactly as to how your argument would prevent such case from happening?

The problem is that the tactical reserves rule doesn't in any way limit itself to reserves.

It sets up that 50% of your army must be on the battle field and in doing so doesn't make a distinction between being on a transport or not. And by your own statements being in a transport is not on the battle field.

From there I have already argued that an edge case can be made that the only units that "arrive" could potentially be reinforcement and reserves, but this isn't really all that specific enough to be a definitive answer.

But for the erd or 4th time in this thread and I hope you actualy read this:

I'd play it as 50% of your army must be set up on the battle field and thus this exclude more than 50% of your army being troops (because by the same rule if they don't count on the battle field than they don't count toward 50% of your army, but they do count toward 100% of your army). Then from there maybe I'll day they don't die by the 3rd turn via the "arrives terminology.

Here let me quote all the times I've said this for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mmimzie wrote:

Literally the state as follows:
50% of your total number of units in your army have to be on the battle field.

There are units that exist known as reinforcements. These units can't move or advance when they arrive, but can otherwise at normally. However such units are considered as having moved for all rules purposes.

Units that haven't arrived on the battle field by the end of round 3 die.

Being embarked is not on the battle field.





That's it. Then is the rules as they are spelled out in the book, and all of which had been quoted here repeatedly.

Again being charitable there is a fringe argument that can be used to exclude units in transports from dying at the end of round 3.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mmimzie wrote:


How i would play it would be to say you must deploy half your army on the battlefield and units in transports don't count toward that half as this is painfully written out as being the case in the rules. Then maybe i'd say they don't die turn 3 as some grounds can be claimed that they don't have any ability to "arrive" on the battle field, and units that do "arrive" onto the battle field do exist, and these are spelled out as being units who are themselves reinforcements, and these are units who when they arrive can't advance or move further, but may other wise act normally when they arrived despite counting as having models for that turn.

That'd be my pretty final answer on the matter i think.

I see all the RAI arguements.thats fine and I even agree that that is probably the intent. However, the raw is pretty clear and one could be charitable with some of the raw to say that the models don't die.

Not really sure while you've been flipping out on me for 2 pages.

It is confusing that you'd make a disagreeing stance yet make the same points that BCB and I are making in terms of what the RAW states.

The point of the RAW being disputable (the only part that I disagree with BCB's "undisputable" comment) is that whether the 3rd turn penalty, explicitly being applied to all units that are off battlefield, also include units in transport - whether it affects both [off battlefield, in reserve] and [off battlefield, in transport]. You and I are on the same position, and have been - that this may be disputable and played accordingly to HYWPI, despite it may not be the RAW.

As for the 50% restriction, it has been already discussed and agreed upon in the page prior. We both agree that both being in transport and in reserves are off battlefield, and thus does not count towards having been set up on battlefield for the 50% restriction. Being unsure as to exactly what you're disagreeing upon was the point of my posts.

 skchsan wrote:
It is confusing that you'd make a disagreeing stance yet make the same points that BCB and I are making in terms of what the RAW states.

The point of the RAW being disputable (the only part that I disagree with BCB's "undisputable" comment) is that whether the 3rd turn penalty, explicitly being applied to all units that are off battlefield, also include units in transport - whether it affects both [off battlefield, in reserve] and [off battlefield, in transport]. You and I are on the same position, and have been - that this may be disputable and played accordingly to HYWPI, despite it may not be the RAW.

As for the 50% restriction, it has been already discussed and agreed upon in the page prior. We both agree that both being in transport and in reserves are off battlefield, and thus does not count towards having been set up on battlefield for the 50% restriction. Being unsure as to exactly what you're disagreeing upon was the point of my posts.

I know we agree on 50%. I just like making sure it's pretty clear where we stand.

Honestly, we've agree'd since about the end of page one. Which is why I'm not sure about what you meant by most of your post, and is why I've quoted you eith a few of mine.

The reason I'm not so sold on the RAW bit goes back to melta bombs in 7th. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE was on being able to use all the grenades you want in melee. Then FAQ comes out and you can only use one. This while not the whole cause, was atleast in some small part a continuation of the oppression of vehicles in 7th, as vehicles were terrified of most army's basic infantry squads.

As such its possible that the intended 'balance' of 8th could be that no none character models could hide all game all, be it in transports, reserves, teleportation, or whatever. Thus they force you to get out.

Another case where I had to argue my arm off was in Aos people didn't want to spend points for this ring called the ring of immortality. That basicly gave one character the ability to get back up with some wound after dying. To me it was super clear in the rules you had to spend points on it and I argued it for PAGES. Most folks aggressively disagreed. And tournament ruled it didn't cost points.... two months later??? It cost points along with a few other units I was arguing about. Here is the link to this one:


http://www.tga.community/forums/topic/2698-mdels-coming-back-to-life-re-enforcment/


So, why does the RAW matter?? Because i understand it seems soooooooo obvious how the rule should be. I even agree to a very small extent the RAI... however the rule doesnt strictly say as much. So you never know.

Units in transports are demonstrably not on the battlefield, or anywhere else the transport is.

This can be seen if you visit the "Ogryns in a Tallarn Ambushing Transport" thread, where I demonstrate that a unit can be "in a transport" that is itself in ambush without being in ambush itself.

Similarly, a unit can be "in a transport" that is itself on the battlefield without being on the battlefield itself.

This is a response I got today from GW it should clear up this topic

First part of the chain

See Tenet #2 along with the 'About' section of GW's Facebook page:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

 Ghaz wrote:
See Tenet #2 along with the 'About' section of GW's Facebook page:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

True, but the FAQ referenced is official, and so if we take the example in it as RAW then we have our answer. Units in a transport do count as being on the table for the purposes of Tactical Reserves.

The FAQ doesn't ACTUALLY talk about this situation. I appreciate the Facebook team wading in but as far as YMDC is concerned that has no more validity than anyone else's opinion.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
The FAQ doesn't ACTUALLY talk about this situation. I appreciate the Facebook team wading in but as far as YMDC is concerned that has no more validity than anyone else's opinion.

Admittedly the FAQ isn't specifically trying to answer this question, but doesn't the FAQ in answering another question explicitly say that a transport with 2 units embarked count as 3 units deployed on the field?