DeathReaper wrote:nekooni wrote:"for all rules purposes" the unit is stationary. Just because you don't think this applies to all rules purposes doesn't mean citation wasn't provided multiple times.
There has been no citation that says the advance is negated.
They count as having made the same kind of move that turn For all rules purposes. They have also made an advance move.
So they are stationary and have advanced.
The context of the rule if for units that started the turn embarked anyway, so it really doesnt apply to a unit that embarked on that turn.
"For all rules purposes" means exactly that. For. All. Rules. Purposes. That means by definition it negates the normal movement condition of the embarked unit. T
The
RAW of the rule is for units that are embarked. It does not state that it only applies to unit that started the turn embarked. Your "context" is merely you wishing it to read that way, not reading what it actually says. But, let's run with your "context". That means if a unit started the movement phase next to a transport, the unit embarked and then the transport advanced across the board, according to what you say for the rules not applying to a unit that embarked that turn, the unit would get to attack in the shooting phase as if they Remained Stationary, despite the fact that the transport Advanced. That shoots down your claim of "context".
EDIT: Also, being a permissive ruleset,, the "for all rules purposes" overrides the normal condition. I do not have to provide any proof other than that statement to show that the emarked unit is treated as moving the same as the transport. It is up to you to provide the rules citation that permits it to count as remained stationary "and" as having advanced simultaneously, and what this hypothetical rule states for what conditions apply in subsequent phases (shooting, for example)
