Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
No, the logic is that transport is a unit, and the unit embarking/disembarking is a unit. There is no distinction between whether a transport is a unit or not for the purpose of transport rule. The rule states a unit cannot perform both disembark and embark in the same turn.
so are you suggesting that when a unit embarks a transport is also considered embarking ?
So are you suggesting "THE unit" is collective for all units in the battlefield?
I am not saying Unit A is going to disembark and then embark,
I am saying unit A will disembark from transport A and then unit B will embark into transport A.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So are you suggesting "THE unit" is collective for all units in the battlefield?
No
I am asking what is embarking, the unit, the transport, or both ?
I think it is pretty clearly the unit doing the action of embarking into the transport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
–it is now embarked inside the transport.
brb 183
note that it does not say, the transport has just embarked the unit.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/06 16:51:48
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Type40 wrote: I am not saying Unit A is going to disembark and then embark,
I am saying unit A will disembark from transport A and then unit B will embark into transport A.
Do you see the hole in your argument?
Clearly, act of embarking/disembarking is an interaction between a unit A and transport N. It's not something that can be disjointed and be claimed as "unit A is performing an action upon transport N" or "transport N is performing an action upon unit A".
Interpretation of ambiguity is HIWPI, not the RAW. There's nothing in the rules that allow you from discounting a transport counting as a unit.
So are you suggesting "THE unit" is collective for all units in the battlefield?
No
I am asking what is embarking, the unit, the transport, or both ?
I think it is pretty clearly the unit doing the action of embarking into the transport.
Citation needed. Note common logic need not apply to game rules. You are arguing chicken or the egg - is it the transport that's allowing embarking by opening its doors so that people can enter it or is it the unit granting the transport an ability to carry them inside the transport? So if there are no units around a transport for it to transport something, is it no longer a transport? Does the definition of a transport depend on its capacity to transport things or its state of transporting things?
As far as the game rules go, it's a mutual action, not one does to another.
If we're arguing technicality of the English language, the word "embark" mean both the action of boarding a vehicle AND to put/take passengers within a vehicle. "Embarking" is the action where the transport that is taking in passengers AND the passengers entering the vehicle in present progressive tense. "Embarked" is when the transport has finished taking in passengers AND the passengers having finished boarding the vehicle.
Type40 wrote: I am not saying Unit A is going to disembark and then embark,
I am saying unit A will disembark from transport A and then unit B will embark into transport A.
Do you see the hole in your argument?
Clearly, act of embarking/disembarking is an interaction between a unit A and transport N. It's not something that can be disjointed and be claimed as "unit A is performing an action upon transport N" or "transport N is performing an action upon unit A".
Interpretation of ambiguity is HIWPI, not the RAW. There's nothing in the rules that allow you from discounting a transport counting as a unit.
Type40 wrote: I am not saying Unit A is going to disembark and then embark,
I am saying unit A will disembark from transport A and then unit B will embark into transport A.
So are you suggesting "THE unit" is collective for all units in the battlefield?
No
I am asking what is embarking, the unit, the transport, or both ?
I think it is pretty clearly the unit doing the action of embarking into the transport.
Citation needed. Note common logic need not apply to game rules. You are arguing chicken or the egg - is it the transport that's allowing embarking by opening its doors so that people can enter it or is it the unit granting the transport an ability to carry them inside the transport? So if there are no units around a transport for it to transport something, is it no longer a transport? Does the definition of a transport depend on its capacity to transport things or its state of transporting things?
As far as the game rules go, it's a mutual action, not one does to another.
If we're arguing technicality of the English language, it is the transport that is "embarking" the units inside. The units do the action of being "embarked." The word "embark" mean both the action of boarding a vehicle AND to put/take passengers within a vehicle.
note that it does not say, the transport has just embarked the unit.
And who let them into the transport? did they pry open the door? Again, real life logic needs not apply in game rules.
citation provided :
:If all models in a unit end their move in their movement phase within 3"of a friendly transport,they can embark within it. Remove the unit from the battle field and place it to one side–it is now embarked inside the transport.
see bolded text,
the rule says THE unit is embarked, or can embark. The rule does NOT say a transport is embarking or embarked.
and if really want to argue the technicality of the English language . Embark is defined as
to go on board a ship or aircraft.
... trying to say a transport is embarking units inside is ridiculous and thats not how the term works. You do not say "my ship is embarking" you say "people are embarking on the ship" but defining terms from the english language and relating them to rules is specifically prohibited on this YMDC so lets just leave this out of it even though you are wrong.
It is clear in the transport rules language that the unit making an action is the unit that is ending its move, not the transport itself.
Do YOU not see the hole in your logic.... lets take a look at the charge rules in sections :
Any of your units within 12" of the enemy in your Charge phase can make a charge move ... .The first model you move must finish within 1"of an enemy model from one of the target units ... Any unit that charged
Transports like charging require a distance towards a target to interact with (3" for transport rules 12" for charging rules) then you do a series of actions, these actions specifically refer to how the unit behaves in relation to what it is doing (transport rules talk about the unit embarking and charges talk about charging) finally, the unit is considered to have done some thing ("any unit that charged" or "it[the unit] is now embarked inside the transport"). [unit has embarked, the unit has charged]
If the rules worked the way you are suggesting, then every enemy that has been charged is also being considered to HAVE charged and can fight first in the fight phase.
The transport has NOT embarked, just like the unit the got charged has NOT charged.
Note that a unit cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn.
It does NOT say "a unit can not both BE embarked and BE disembarked" it says a unit can not embark and disembark ... unless you think that the a unit getting charged is also a unit that is charging ?
Clearly, act of embarking/disembarking is an interaction between a unit A and transport N. It's not something that can be disjointed and be claimed as "unit A is performing an action upon transport N" or "transport N is performing an action upon unit A".
How about YOU provide a citation considering the rest of the game does not imply that something performing an action on a target also means the target is performing the same action. the target is having the action performed upon it... the unit got charged,,, it is not also charging,,, the unit is being targeted for shooting, it is not also shooting, etc ,etc ...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/06 17:45:35
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
The FAQ quote required was provided in the third and fourth posts in this thread. Thread done.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
The FAQ quote required was provided in the third and fourth posts in this thread. Thread done.
dont be ridiculous, that quote only shows how much more wrong it is .
Q: Can a unit that Advances or Falls Back embark within a transport? What about if the transport has moved before – can a unit still embark inside?
A: Yes, yes and yes (remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the
same turn).
As I have just shown,,, it is literally impossible for a transport to "embark" or "disembark" anything. As the action is done by the unit attempting to embark not the transport itself... again unless you think everyone who has been charged should get to fight first because they have also charged ?
Making the FaQ reminder text literally mean nothing in terms of game rules. it'd be like writing, "remember, a unit who gets charged can not charge again in the same turn"
Second, the FAQRaW is telling us to "remember" a rule that does not exist. I am more then willing to have a little contemplative session on non-existing rules 4 times a game,,, but it isn't a rule about actually doing anything that impacts the battlefield.
finally, the FaQ statement itself is out of the formatting for proposition of new rules as it is reminder/example text and not an intended rules change... otherwise it would have gotten errata or have gotten its own question.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/06 17:55:08
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
unless you can point to somewhere in the rules that say "
if A is doing an action to B then B is doing that action too"
or even specifically
"when a unit is embarking in a transport then the transport is also embarking"
but the wording of transport rules is not like that. the syntax is consistent with every other rule where A interacts with B and thus B is not doing the same action as A.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: This forum is for debating the RAW, and how people get around by RAW when it renders itself unplayable.
This forum is NOT for gratification and confirmation of TFG move that TFG does in his games.
If you don't like the RAW, that's fine. If you interpret the RAW to your own liking, that's fine. If you play the game differently, thats fine.
It still doesnt change the RAW (or as modified by FAQ as applicable).
It is NOT about interpreting the RAW to my own liking. I am trying to figure out why you ARE interpreting the RAW to your own liking. The RAW is clearly what it is. EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T LIKE THAT. I have pointed that out clearly.
It has taken ALOT of interpretation and discussion about RAI to even say the FAQ changes the rule.
RAW says "REMEMBER" that is what is written,,, you are interpreting that inclusion in the FAQ without the word "Remember," without the word "REMEMBER" then it is not RAW it is RAI .
Otherwise, the language used in the base rules is clear.
So don't start telling me that I am the one interpreting it to my own liking. I am literally reading what is on the page and making NO jumps. The rules DO NOT say unit A can not disembark and then have Unit B embark into the same transport. Everything that points to that possiblity has been an inference outside of what is actually written.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/06 18:09:19
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
The FAQ quote required was provided in the third and fourth posts in this thread. Thread done.
dont be ridiculous, that quote only shows how much more wrong it is .
Q: Can a unit that Advances or Falls Back embark within a transport? What about if the transport has moved before – can a unit still embark inside?
A: Yes, yes and yes (remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the
same turn).
.
An answer that says a transport cannot bother embark and disembark units in the same turn proves that units can have units both embark and disembark in it the same turn? Surrrrrrrrrre......
Just play it like the FAQ tells you to - you can't have a unit disembark from a transport then another unit embark into it (or vice versa).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/06 18:21:01
except for the people who suggested it worked like this earlier in the thread.
Actually I didnt have an opinion on it until i asked the question at the beginning. i was just learning it.
Then I started reading it and the material surrounding it to figure it out. You have all been on a learning journey with me from a point of 0 knowledge on the rule to a conclusive point.
That's when it became obvious to me that this was a poor interpretation and not founded in either correct interpretation of RAW or a correct use of FAQs. lol its not even a correct interpretation based on how people are saying we SHOULD use the FAQs.
Anyways, thanks for the journey.
Sorry to come and challenge your established notions like that. I'll remember then that this is a place where people don't like to be shown fallacies in their logic and don't like it when someone presents something outside of their conclusions.
Its clear though, that I have likely interpreted this close to correctly as instead of presenting a counter point or where the logic I have presented are incorrect, you have decided to call me out for challenging you. I will take that as you can't find a way to disprove my logic without making inferences outside of the RAW.
You are not obligated to prove me right, but I do think it is interesting that you refuse to be proven wrong.
If you want, come back to me when anyone can show that in the context of these rules
If A does an action to B then that means B is also doing the same action. Either specifically related to transports or anything else.
The FAQ quote required was provided in the third and fourth posts in this thread. Thread done.
dont be ridiculous, that quote only shows how much more wrong it is .
Q: Can a unit that Advances or Falls Back embark within a transport? What about if the transport has moved before – can a unit still embark inside?
A: Yes, yes and yes (remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the
same turn).
.
An answer that says a transport cannot bother embark and disembark units in the same turn proves that units can have units both embark and disembark in it the same turn? Surrrrrrrrrre......
Just play it like the FAQ tells you to - you can't have a unit disembark from a transport then another unit embark into it (or vice versa).
read my response to that,,, a transport can't embark just like a unit that has been charged is not considered to HAVE done charging. The FAQ is literally saying nonsense as though it wrote "a unit that has been charged can not charge in the same phase"
also, like I said, if you want to take reminder/example text as RAW it is not RAW to ignore the word "remember"
and finally its not intentional to have reminder/example text overwrite rules, as demonstrated by other reminder texts and example texts and general FAQ formatting in game design. Which is why It isn't logical to think reminder/example text is RAW in the first place, why not introduce new rules in a the established formatted way ?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/06 18:34:24
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
The FAQ quote required was provided in the third and fourth posts in this thread. Thread done.
dont be ridiculous, that quote only shows how much more wrong it is .
Q: Can a unit that Advances or Falls Back embark within a transport? What about if the transport has moved before – can a unit still embark inside?
A: Yes, yes and yes (remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the
same turn).
.
An answer that says a transport cannot bother embark and disembark units in the same turn proves that units can have units both embark and disembark in it the same turn? Surrrrrrrrrre......
Just play it like the FAQ tells you to - you can't have a unit disembark from a transport then another unit embark into it (or vice versa).
read my response to that,,, a transport can't embark just like a unit that has been charged is not considered to HAVE done charging.
Your response is wrong if you are trying to let a transport embark and disembark units the same turn, as the FAQ clearly tells you to remember that you can't do that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/06 18:34:02
no the FAQ tells me to REMEMBER a non-existent rule, not to enact a rule... that is the RAW Second, its reminder text,,,, reminder text is not used to introduce new rules. but rather to help explain the question they are answering. (making it quite clear this is a mistake[like in other reminder/example text in the FAQs])
Third, if we ignore the word REMEMBER and accept that every other word in the FAQ is RAW, it tells me that a transport can not embark or disembark units in the same turn.... well that's good, the transport does not embark and disembark, units embark and disembark into transports.
If you want references for all of this please look in my earlier posts. they are there.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Type40 wrote: no the FAQ tells me to REMEMBER a non-existent rule, not to enact a rule... that is the RAW Second, its reminder text,,,, reminder text is not used to introduce new rules. but rather to help explain the question they are answering. (making it quite clear this is a mistake[like in other reminder/example text in the FAQs])
Third, if we ignore the word REMEMBER and accept that every other word in the FAQ is RAW, it tells me that a transport can not embark or disembark units in the same turn.... well that's good, the transport does not embark and disembark, units embark and disembark into transports.
If you want references for all of this please look in my earlier posts. they are there.
Sorry you weren't a part of this discussion when it was first brought up when 8th ed launched.
This topic has been beaten to death and sent to hell and back to living then beaten again.
The consensus is that no unit, transport or not, can invoke the rules for embarking and disembarking in the same turn.
So I guess pulse rifles shoot twice at max range... and every other poorly worded piece of example text as well. but should ignore some words like the word Remember, and just pick and choose what we want to be rules and what we don't.
Its weird, that people want to consider this stuff RAW but don't want to use the words verbatim .
I concede , but I hope you guys see the error in your logic. (i.e. use every word the FAQ as written verbatim,,, except don't and skip some words because then it makes no sense, so we ll make interpretation, but its RAW, even though its not what is written).
Type40 wrote: no the FAQ tells me to REMEMBER a non-existent rule, not to enact a rule... that is the RAW Second, its reminder text,,,, reminder text is not used to introduce new rules. but rather to help explain the question they are answering. (making it quite clear this is a mistake[like in other reminder/example text in the FAQs])
Third, if we ignore the word REMEMBER and accept that every other word in the FAQ is RAW, it tells me that a transport can not embark or disembark units in the same turn.... well that's good, the transport does not embark and disembark, units embark and disembark into transports.
If you want references for all of this please look in my earlier posts. they are there.
Yeah but is transport a unit?
Yes a transport is a unit,, but its not a unit that is does the action of embarking... do you really not get that... or are units that get charged considered to have been charging . think about it for one second.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/06 18:44:24
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Type40 wrote: no the FAQ tells me to REMEMBER a non-existent rule, not to enact a rule... that is the RAW Second, its reminder text,,,, reminder text is not used to introduce new rules. but rather to help explain the question they are answering. (making it quite clear this is a mistake[like in other reminder/example text in the FAQs])
Third, if we ignore the word REMEMBER and accept that every other word in the FAQ is RAW, it tells me that a transport can not embark or disembark units in the same turn.... well that's good, the transport does not embark and disembark, units embark and disembark into transports.
If you want references for all of this please look in my earlier posts. they are there.
Yeah but is transport a unit?
Yes a transport is a unit,, but its not a unit that is does the action of embarking... do you really not get that... or are units that get charged considered to have been charging . think about it for one second.
RAW stance is VERY literal. Almost always TOO literal to a fault. To quote our friendly neighborhood YMDC resident, these are "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.
The RAW states a unit (a set in which a transport falls within) cannot perform both embark and disembark in the same turn.
Sometimes (hell, most the time with GW's crappy writing) rules don't work as you'd think it would or should, which is always we say 'defer to the TO' or 'discuss beforehand with opponent'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/06 18:56:25
Type40 wrote: no the FAQ tells me to REMEMBER a non-existent rule, not to enact a rule... that is the RAW
No, it's telling you to remember a rule that it establishes by telling you to remember the rule. That rule is still RAW, whether you like it or not.
Type40 wrote: Second, its reminder text,,,, reminder text is not used to introduce new rules. but rather to help explain the question they are answering. (making it quite clear this is a mistake[like in other reminder/example text in the FAQs])
Obviously in this case it is being used to introduce new rules.
Type40 wrote: Third, if we ignore the word REMEMBER and accept that every other word in the FAQ is RAW, it tells me that a transport can not embark or disembark units in the same turn.... well that's good, the transport does not embark and disembark, units embark and disembark into transports.
You make no sense here, the transport is not embarking and disembarking itself, it clearly says embarking and disembarking units. A cruise ship disembarks passengers all the time.
doctortom wrote: A cruise ship disembarks passengers all the time.
Technically the cruise ship just floats there tied to the dock, it is the passengers that disembark. The Ship does not take any action when its passengers disembark.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
doctortom wrote: A cruise ship disembarks passengers all the time.
Technically the cruise ship just floats there tied to the dock, it is the passengers that disembark. The Ship does not take any action when its passengers disembark.
They lower gamgplanks and such to let the passengers get off the ship. And they have staff helping people to do so.
doctortom wrote: A cruise ship disembarks passengers all the time.
Technically the cruise ship just floats there tied to the dock, it is the passengers that disembark. The Ship does not take any action when its passengers disembark.
They lower gamgplanks and such to let the passengers get off the ship. And they have staff helping people to do so.
The ship does not do that though, the crew does.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
doctortom wrote: A cruise ship disembarks passengers all the time.
Technically the cruise ship just floats there tied to the dock, it is the passengers that disembark. The Ship does not take any action when its passengers disembark.
They lower gamgplanks and such to let the passengers get off the ship. And they have staff helping people to do so.
The ship does not do that though, the crew does.
And in 40K the crew are considered as part of the vehicle you purchase.
And in 40K the crew are considered as part of the vehicle you purchase.
Citation needed.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
Really, does it mater how define embark ,,,, (but I agree with DeathReaper,,, at least I have never heard of a ship that embarks,,, except for on maybe an aircraft carrier,,, but that's literally a ship getting on another ship)
The fact of the mater is, using the syntax and language of the transport rules, there is literally no rule in 40k that says the action one thing takes on something causes the other thing to be doing it too. I.e. something that charges something doesn't cause the thing being charge to also be considered charging.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
The fact of the matter is you asked for an answer and are still ignoring the clear answer in the FAQ, despite it directly answering your rules query. Abstract concepts about actions and effects (and hypothetical cruise ships) are kinda irrelevant when the rules writers have given you the answer in black and white.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
but as we have established, the actual definition of words are not to be used to justify anything in YMDC.
so whether your definition of ships "embarking" people is true in the english language or not (it is not) doesn't mater.
The fact is, A does an action to B does not cause B to be doing the same action in 40k.
Therefor, even if we take the steps of first believing reminder/example text is intended RAW, THEN ignoring the word Remember or choosing not think of that as a statement of reference.We arrive at the statement itself and A transport is incapable of embarking or disembarking, only a unit can. Thus the FAQ reminder text is nonsense. Its the equivalent of saying "Remember, a model who has been charged this turn can not charge again this phase"
Unless someone can show me in how the syntax of the transport rules, or any other rule in 40k where A takes an action towards B causes B to be taking the same action... The language and syntax doesn't do that and if you think it does,,, well its the same language used to describe a unit charging or shooting,,, so good luck with the consequences of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: The fact of the matter is you asked for an answer and are still ignoring the clear answer in the FAQ, despite it directly answering your rules query. Abstract concepts about actions and effects (and hypothetical cruise ships) are kinda irrelevant when the rules writers have given you the answer in black and white.
I am not bringing up the cruise ship, other people are trying to use that to disprove this...
And the FAQ is not clear, its not even clear if we should be using reminder text AS rules.
I'll repeat AGAIN,
1. the FAQ is presenting reminder text... this is NOT the rule or clarification even being presented by the question, this is "extra" and intended to be used for clarification for an answer (see any other game ever or a take a game design class), we can also see that GW has failed at reminder/example text in the past and in other instances. If this isn't the case and GW does expect us to take reminder/example text as RAW, i want to know where they tell us they are not using conventional standards or even their own Errata / FaQ rules proposition format.
So lets now assume that we are supposed to use the reminder/example text as RAW.
2. What is written is
remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the
same turn
Remember indicating that we should be referring or recalling something. Something that literally doesn't exist. The RAW rule written here is literally a rule about remembering something. I am not sure how you can claim you want to take this RAW without acknowledging that.
So finally lets now assume we wont do this RAW, we will do this as RAI because we want to ignore the word so we can focus on the non-existent rule it is telling us to remember.
3.
a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the
same turn
well now we look at the syntax and language of the transport rules and we see that, as written, transports NEVER embark or disembark units, that is something a unit does. Making the whole statement non-sense.
Again unless you are suggesting that type of syntax and language should be used to indicate other things written like that work that way.. but I really don't think the unit I have that just got charged should also be considered charging.
In order to make this language actually say this you would have to have a rule like "a transport that has had a unit embarked in it this turn can not have another unit embark within it." that way the sentence would stay consistent with the syntax and language used in the ENTIRE game.
This is so far from black and white, it takes multiple levels of inferences, assumptions and not playing by RAW just to get to the point where this reminder text even makes sense in a rules context.
Everyone is jumping through soooo many hoops and then implying there conclusion of RAI is RAW.. but sorry, this isn't what is written, what is written is some non-sense reminder text.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/06 22:29:45
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Type40 wrote: <snip>A bunch of stuff about syntax and nonsense</snip>
it's generally a good idea to start from the assumption the rules writers aren't in the habit of writing literal pointless nonsense. You seem adamant a piece of reminder text doesn't apply because if you look at it in a certain way and twist things a different way it might, possibly, just maybe, not be saying anything at all. That's an odd position to take. At least I think that's your position, I'm really not sure since we're now discussing cruise ships apparently.
Seriously, who brought up the cruise ships ? this is relevant to nothing here.
I am saying, if you look at the reminder text, it is literally meaningless. It refers in no way to an existing rule (while being a statement of referral) and if it is magically making itself its own rule that tells you to refer to itself, then it still doesn't make sense because the rule book is quite clear that the unit is doing the embarking not the transport . Its literally a meaningless sentence.
And considering the amount of mistakes we have found in reminder/example text else where and that this type of text isn't even intentionally attempting to act as the answer to a question in the official fromat of the FAQ/Errata (it is used to help explain an answer) it should hardly be considered something that the designers had intentionally tried to introduce as a new rule. If they wanted to introduce a new rule they would have done it,,, following the format of the Eratta and FAQ not write some reminder text in a unrelated question in a way that doesn't make sense. And if they were going to introduce this rule for real, they would have introduced it in a way that makes sense in the context of the rest of the rules syntax (as they have always been consistent with this [with the syntax, not the rules themselves]).
This makes it clear to me that this was not an intentional attempt to introduce a new rule but rather a failed attempt to reference something else.
Automatically Appended Next Post: no twisting it, no looking at it differently, literally doing the opposite, I am reading it AS WRITTEN , and not making inferences. Something that everyone else HAS to do just to both make this a rule and to make it make sense in this game.
It is not RAW to think that a unit in the state of embarking a vehicle also somehow puts the vehicle in the state of embarking ... this is literally written no where, it is not referenced anywhere, it is not how the transport rules are written and it isn't done with ANY other mechanic in the game.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/07 00:25:21
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Type40 wrote: Seriously, who brought up the cruise ships ? this is relevant to nothing here.
Here:
doctortom wrote: ...A cruise ship disembarks passengers all the time.
He was trying to show that the transport was taking an action, but clearly it does not. the passengers do though.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
