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.

Let's quote the transport rule.

BRB pg 80 wrote:Transport Capacity
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.

And the jump unit rules.

BRB pg 65 wrote:Jump Units
Jump units therefor share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.

As you can see the unit does meet the permission to be carried by the transport. What it does not do is meet the requirement for embarking. Which means they can be carried but cannot embark. Since as far as the rules are concerned they do not embark they simply start embarked, per the reserve rules, they meet the carrying capacity of the transport.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - so a unit of 20 Templars can embark their razor back? Yes or no?

There is no implicit allowance here, as too many absurd situations than occur. For example 20 warriors, can hey go in their ghost ark?

Oberron - again, answer tHe full scenario. Not half of it. I disembarked form an assault vehicle, therefore I may assault - it's in the assault vehicle rules. So I may assault, and I may not assault. May I ask,t? Yes or no.

What is the Razorbacks transport capacity?


The only scenario you had proposed to me was "

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question. Would you like to modify your question? Also demanding a simple yes or no answer for a complex question is a logical fallacy and is normally a nono

 Ghaz wrote:
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry).

Reread that, it tells you what can be carried in the first paragraph and then limits what can embark. Action vs state.

 Ghaz wrote:

Zimko wrote:
Jump and Jet are not restricted until you reach the 'embarking' rules.

Look again. From the second paragraph of 'Transport Capacity' in the Transport section of the rules:

Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry).

This rule only restricts normal Infantry to embarking, it does not restrict Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from being already embarked in a transport prior to the start of the game.


To further show permission for a unit to be embarked on a transport in reserves prior to the start of the game...

Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserves are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserves, in which case they will arrive together.

Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

From the rules for reserves

Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserves are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserves, in which case they will arrive together.

This grants permission for a unit to be embarked without ever performing the 'embarking' action described in the Transport Capacity rule you quoted.

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

Ghaz do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?

I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

Oberron wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

Ghaz do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?

I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

This is essentially the argument. It's taking a little while for everyone to get past some of the other rules like transport capacity and jump infantry units to get to this point but it's really the crux of the debate.

The argument is

con: past and present tense (have to been embarking in order to be embarked

pro: given the opportunity to bypass embarking rules and allow Jump/Jet Infantry to be embarked/deployed

I've made my stance, said my points, I don't want to repeat myself again, I'll wait for the mods to lock this

 Frozocrone wrote:
The argument is

con: past and present tense (have to been embarking in order to be embarked

pro: given the opportunity to bypass embarking rules and allow Jump/Jet Infantry to be embarked/deployed

I've made my stance, said my points, I don't want to repeat myself again, I'll wait for the mods to lock this

Could you answer my two questions was not sure if you did not see them from the previous page?

Would you agree then that if there was no restriction to Jump Infantry units embarking that they could be embarked on a transport because they follow the rules for Infantry?

Do you think that being embarked means you must have gone through the embark rule in some way or form (in accordence to the rules of the game not in language tense)?

1) Yes
2) Yes

Oberron wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

Ghaz do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?

I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

What I think is happening is that certain people are trying to twist GW's use of the real world definition of 'embark' into a rules definition and are ignoring the fact that its in the 'Transport Capacity' section of the rules and not in the 'Embarking and Disembarking' section of the rules and whatever other problems it causes they just handwave away. Using their logic, an Assault Cannon would be an 'Assault' weapon just because it has the word 'Assault' in its name and ignoring the fact that its not in the weapon profile.

 Ghaz wrote:

Oberron wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

Ghaz do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?

I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

What I think is happening is that certain people are trying to twist GW's use of the real world definition of 'embark' into a rules definition and are ignoring the fact that its in the 'Transport Capacity' section of the rules and not in the 'Embarking and Disembarking' section of the rules and whatever other problems it causes they just handwave away. Using their logic, an Assault Cannon would be an 'Assault' weapon just because it has the word 'Assault' in its name and ignoring the fact that its not in the weapon profile.

gw's use of embark IS a rules definition though.

Now that you have expressed what you think other people are doing what about yourself? do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?


Also the assault cannon example is a False analogy logical fallacy.

edit: correct myself.

Oberron wrote:
gw's use of embark IS a rules definition though.

No. Not when its in the 'Transport Capacity' rules and before they even mention Embarking in the rules at all.

 Ghaz wrote:

Oberron wrote:
gw's use of embark IS a rules definition though.

No. Not when its in the 'Transport Capacity' rules and before they even mention Embarking in the rules at all.

So are you saying that if GW uses a word that has a rules definition later on in the book any time that word is used before hand is the common real world use of said word?

Oberron wrote:I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

Yes, that would be the fundamental debate.

Oberron wrote:The only scenario you had proposed to me was

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question.

He said

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

You have not addressed this scenario, and it does involve a vehicle.

Naw wrote:I think of this as a case where the codex trumps the base rulebook with its "advanced" rules.

It would be if the Night Scythe said it could carry Jump Pack Infantry in its Transport Capacity rules like the previous version, or if the Praetorians' rules specifically stated they could embark on a Transport.

As has been demonstrated through the use of just general numbers of Transport Capacity, there are many times where a Dedicated Transport cannot actually carry the unit that purchased it. Praetorians are just in the unique position of not being able to embark on to the Night Scythe from the time the unit is purchased.

There is no conflict, because none of the listed rules for either unit specifically counter any Transport rules.

If units had to start the game embarked in their Dedicated Transports, than you would have a case. Alas, for this case, there is no such requirement.

Oberron wrote:I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

It took you this long to figure it out? I've stated it numerous times up to this point.

And no, embarking and being embarked are not the same rules-wise, but that does not mean there isn't a specific relationship.

As has been repeated numerous times, it is a case of tenses and the relationships they provide. On one end, they say there is no relationship, because "embarked" is never defined as having a relationship with "embark". On the other end, they are saying that the relationship is there due to the simple fact that GW has not provided any rules to actually separate them.

In a way, one group is saying, "well the rules don't tell me I can't separate them, and I think I have to in order to get them to work", while the other is saying, "well the rules don't tell me I can separate them, so I have to find another way to get them to work."

@Gravmyr, I can what you are going for bringing up deploying in dangerous terrain. The difference is that, as Charistoph put it, there is a relationship between embarked and embanking. Something that is embarked = something that was embarking, but this relationship is not present in the langue used for deployment and dangerous terrain tests. Something in dangerous terrain =/= something that was entering dangerous terrain just as something that is on board a ship =/= something that was embarking onto a ship.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Oberron wrote:The only scenario you had proposed to me was

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question.

He said

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

You have not addressed this scenario, and it does involve a vehicle.

I asked for the scenario he said and what he said was that I had quoted it and it was the first line. But i will answer this new question presented to me.

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

Lets look at the rules involved with the question.

Assault Vehicle(pg157, a special rule) Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even in a turn that the vehicle was destroyed, or in the following turn) unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn." So we do have permission to charge after they disembark

Final line of run (pg38, a basic rule) "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase."

I am not sure of the RAI answer and the RAW answer is still fuzzy to me but HIWPI I'd let the imperial player assault after running as long as they disembarked from an assault vehicle that didn't arrive from reserves that turn. I do feel like I'm missing something rules wise.

If there is something that I have missed rules wise could you point them out for me?

Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:I think of this as a case where the codex trumps the base rulebook with its "advanced" rules.

It would be if the Night Scythe said it could carry Jump Pack Infantry in its Transport Capacity rules like the previous version, or if the Praetorians' rules specifically stated they could embark on a Transport.

As has been demonstrated through the use of just general numbers of Transport Capacity, there are many times where a Dedicated Transport cannot actually carry the unit that purchased it.

No disagreement here. I would not try to put 10 marines in a razorback. And if some units have to contain more models than a transport can carry is just sloppy editing by GW.

Praetorians are just in the unique position of not being able to embark on to the Night Scythe from the time the unit is purchased.

...aaand they are not embarking. The rules don't require it.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Oberron wrote:
I asked for the scenario he said and what he said was that I had quoted it and it was the first line.

But you did quote him, and it was the 1st line of the quote... http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/300/654681.page#7969264 Do you not remember making that post?

 DJGietzen wrote:
@Gravmyr, I can what you are going for bringing up deploying in dangerous terrain. The difference is that, as Charistoph put it, there is a relationship between embarked and embanking. Something that is embarked = something that was embarking, but this relationship is not present in the langue used for deployment and dangerous terrain tests. Something in dangerous terrain =/= something that was entering dangerous terrain just as something that is on board a ship =/= something that was embarking onto a ship.

You just stated that both embarked and embarking are related and that they are not. The argument that has been presented is that by the rules of English you need to embark to be embarked. Similarly to be in something you need to have entered it. Going by the English definitions embarking and entering are literally the same thing with the only difference being location. If by English there is a relationship between embarking and being embarked then there is one between being in terrain and entering it.

You also compared different sections above, you compared embarking and being embarked to dangerous terrain and deployment. You need to compare similar rules, in this case embarking and deployment in a transport to dangerous terrain and deployment into dangerous terrain.

Oberron wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Oberron wrote:The only scenario you had proposed to me was

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question.

He said

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

You have not addressed this scenario, and it does involve a vehicle.

I asked for the scenario he said and what he said was that I had quoted it and it was the first line. But i will answer this new question presented to me.

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

Lets look at the rules involved with the question.

Assault Vehicle(pg157, a special rule) Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even in a turn that the vehicle was destroyed, or in the following turn) unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn." So we do have permission to charge after they disembark

Final line of run (pg38, a basic rule) "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase."

I am not sure of the RAI answer and the RAW answer is still fuzzy to me but HIWPI I'd let the imperial player assault after running as long as they disembarked from an assault vehicle that didn't arrive from reserves that turn. I do feel like I'm missing something rules wise.

If there is something that I have missed rules wise could you point them out for me?

You have missed the need for a specific permission to override a specific restriction

Gravmyr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
@Gravmyr, I can what you are going for bringing up deploying in dangerous terrain. The difference is that, as Charistoph put it, there is a relationship between embarked and embanking. Something that is embarked = something that was embarking, but this relationship is not present in the langue used for deployment and dangerous terrain tests. Something in dangerous terrain =/= something that was entering dangerous terrain just as something that is on board a ship =/= something that was embarking onto a ship.

You just stated that both embarked and embarking are related and that they are not. The argument that has been presented is that by the rules of English you need to embark to be embarked. Similarly to be in something you need to have entered it. Going by the English definitions embarking and entering are literally the same thing with the only difference being location. If by English there is a relationship between embarking and being embarked then there is one between being in terrain and entering it.

You also compared different sections above, you compared embarking and being embarked to dangerous terrain and deployment. You need to compare similar rules, in this case embarking and deployment in a transport to dangerous terrain and deployment into dangerous terrain.

Ok, so embarking is not the same as being on board. You can find yourself on board with out embarking. The catch is that if you do, you are not embarked. This goes back 4 pages. If you want to believe that being deployed in a ship, or being carried in a ship is not the same as embarking onto that ship you will run into a nest of problems, the biggest being that you will not be able to disembark.

 jokerkd wrote:

Oberron wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Oberron wrote:The only scenario you had proposed to me was

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question.

He said

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

You have not addressed this scenario, and it does involve a vehicle.

I asked for the scenario he said and what he said was that I had quoted it and it was the first line. But i will answer this new question presented to me.

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

Lets look at the rules involved with the question.

Assault Vehicle(pg157, a special rule) Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even in a turn that the vehicle was destroyed, or in the following turn) unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn." So we do have permission to charge after they disembark

Final line of run (pg38, a basic rule) "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase."

I am not sure of the RAI answer and the RAW answer is still fuzzy to me but HIWPI I'd let the imperial player assault after running as long as they disembarked from an assault vehicle that didn't arrive from reserves that turn. I do feel like I'm missing something rules wise.

If there is something that I have missed rules wise could you point them out for me?

You have missed the need for a specific permission to override a specific restriction

So you are saying that the specific permission from "Assault Vehicles" USR does not override the specific restriction of the run rule? That does make sense, I'm a bit scattered in my thoughts from bounce back and forth from gardening and in-house activities. I'm also wondering what the relationship between this question with a restriction and a permission for the same thing (able/not able charging after doing X) and embark(restriction on) and being carried(permission through following rules for Infantry).

 DJGietzen wrote:
Ok, so embarking is not the same as being on board. You can find yourself on board with out embarking. The catch is that if you do, you are not embarked. This goes back 4 pages. If you want to believe that being deployed in a ship, or being carried in a ship is not the same as embarking onto that ship you will run into a nest of problems, the biggest being that you will not be able to disembark.

Your side is the only one saying that we are advocating putting models on the transport without them being embarked. They are embarked they simply did not embark to get to that state, both the transport and the unit inside come into being at the same time as far as the game is concerned and the unit comes into being embarked already. There was not a time they existed without them being embarked so how would they have embarked?

SO, to summarise -

Either the unit is embarked without ever embarking, or the unit can not be embarked because that woudl have required embarking.

If in doubt, discuss with your opponent.


Time to give this one a rest.