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.

Ok here's the setup:

You have Creed and an Allied Land Raider (Or the other way around it doesn't matter really) and a unit that deploys embarked on the Land Raider (Dedicated or not, it doesn't matter)

Creed gives Scout to the Land Raider which then moves 12" towards the enemy. Is there anything preventing you from moving 6", Disembarking the unit inside and assaulting on Turn 1? Please cite the page number the objecting rule is on. So far that I can remember the restriction on assaulting due to the Scout move would only apply to the Land Raider which can't assault anyways.

Yes, the scout rule on Page 41 disallows it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, the scout rule on Page 41 disallows it.

No it doesn't. The scout rule bans a unit that made a scout redeployment from charging, but the Land Raider is making the scout redeployment, not the unit inside. The Land Raider can not declare a charge, but its passengers can.

So the unit inside is still in the deployment zone?

Or did the unit also make a Scout redeployment by virtue of being embarked on the vehicle?

If the vehicle is redeployed so are its contents...

Ergo neither the Land Raider or the unit that is embarked can declare a charge on the first turn.

The Vehicle made the Scout redeployment, the unit is still deployed where you deployed it (inside the Vehicle).

If the vehicle moves the unit inside also has moved.

The same applies for scout redeployment. the vehicle being redeployed means its contents go with it, and as such have been redeployed as they are not in the same location on the battlefield. (We know this because we can measure the distance between units by measuring from the hull for an embarked unit, and we clearly see that the unit inside not in the same location).

Not that it matters anyway, the Guard do not get Land raiders, and Creed can only give Scouts to a unit in his army (Which in the context of the IG book means IG Army).

Interesting thinking. I'm sure there's something in the transportrules that covers this in how you treat the embarked unit. Leaving this as a placeholder to check later.

Since no one has yet addressed it, it should be noted that even if the first turn charge restriction applies, this only prohibits charging on PLAYER Turn 1, not GAME Turn 1. If the player goes second, he can still charge on his first turn regardless of how the Scouts rule is interpreted.

Scout has a sentence regarding Dedicated Transports, and then addresses non-dedicated Transports: "Note that a Transport with this special rule does not lose it if a unit without this special rule is embarked upon it" (BRB41). So they've thought through what happens when the Transport but not the unit embarked has Scout, and the rule says that the Transport may still make a Scout re-deployment.

The question, then, is, "Has the unit inside made a Scout re-deployment?" The unit inside does not have Scout, and so cannot redeploy. But it is embarked inside a vehicle which has redeployed. And the embarked unit has definitely been redeployed in any usual sense of the word, since it's no longer in the spot where it was first deployed. But it can't have made a "Scout redeployment" since it doesn't have the rule! But Scout was the rule responsible for the change in position....But.....etc.

And hence my confusion. I'm all for just yelling "CREED!" and assaulting with Wolf Guard / Death Company in a Redeemer on turn 1. But the main question now I guess is "If a transport redeploys using Scout, do any units embarked inside count has having been redeployed as well?"

S.K.Ren wrote:
"If a transport redeploys using Scout, do any units embarked inside count has having been redeployed as well?"

Well, yes, of course they've been redeployed: they are now deployed in a position that they were not originally deployed in.
But there's no restriction on assaulting after "redeployment"--there's a restriction on assaulting after redeployment because your unit has Scout.
So the question is, "Has the embarked unit made a 'Scout Redeployment'?"

Also, I like the idea of yelling "CREED!" while assaulting. Can Rule of Cool be applied to rules??

Not that any of this matters because the Imperial Guard do not get Land raiders, and Creed can only give Scouts to a unit in his army (Which in the context of the IG book means IG Army).

Well, the only thing I could find was on page 78. "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

So, regardless of the transport itself, you need specific permission for the embarked unit to deploy outside of the usual deployment zone. This is granted by the Scout rule, but in order to follow that rule you need to measure from the vehicle's hull to ensure you've followed Scout's requirements. This means that the unit must have performed a Scout move, in following its rules and restrictions, in order to be outside the deployment zone to begin with.

The only trouble here is that this is a lot of inferring, while at no point are we outright told that the unit has made a Scout redeployment - while other aspects of being onboard a transport as Scouts are covered in-depth. So I'm not sure this argument holds any water.

Where is Army defined? Cause I can't find it mentioned in the IG codex. By my understanding, your 'Army' is what you bring to the field including your Primary Detachments, Tertiary Detachments and Allied Detachments.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not that any of this matters because the Imperial Guard do not get Land raiders, and Creed can only give Scouts to a unit in his army (Which in the context of the IG book means IG Army).

I dont see this restriction. Your army can also mean "what you are fielding". Maybe this was the intention but thats definitely not RAW.

Page 108 in the rulebook tells you how you are "choosing your army". Also there are several pages where your models are referred to as "your army" in the main rulebook.

Creeds entry tells you that during deployment you may choose one single infantry or vehicle unit in your army to get scout.

I would allow it, if it was played against me

S.K.Ren wrote:
Where is Army defined? Cause I can't find it mentioned in the IG codex. By my understanding, your 'Army' is what you bring to the field including your Primary Detachments, Tertiary Detachments and Allied Detachments.

Page 3 IG codex Forces of the Imperial Guard section: "Each and every character, troop type, and vehicle in the Imperial Guard army is examined in this section."

P3 Imperial Guard Army List section: "The army list takes all of the units presented in the forces of the Imperial Guard section and arranges them so you can choose an army for your own games..."

Forces of the Imperial Guard section contains units from "the Imperial Guard army" and the army list lets you chose an army.

Forces of the Imperial Guard section Page 29: " this section of the book details the forces used by the Imperial Guard... Each entry describes the unit and gives the specific rules you will need to use them in your games of Warhammer 40,000. The army list later refers to the page numbers of these entries so you can check back as you pick your force."

This is the context of Army as written in the IG book, so when Creed's rule refers to army it means units presented in the forces of the Imperial Guard section, which means something from the IG Army list.

 DeathReaper wrote:



This is the context of Army as written in the IG book, so when Creed's rule refers to army it means units presented in the forces of the Imperial Guard section, which means something from the IG Army list.

But creeds entry refers to "your army" in general. The restriction you are creating here is very vague. As i said. The rulebook tells me how to choose my army. That incluces allies. They are part of my army. Creeds entry tells me to pick a unit in my army.

 Mywik wrote:
Creeds entry tells me to pick a unit in my army.

and in the context of the IG codex it is talking about a unit from the Forces of the Imperial Guard section as I have shown.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Creeds entry tells me to pick a unit in my army.

and in the context of the IG codex it is talking about a unit from the Forces of the Imperial Guard section as I have shown.

The rulebook tells me i am able to take allied detachments. Choosing an allied detachment is made during i choose my army. They are in fact part of my army. Where exactly am i disallowed to use his special rule on a unit that is part of my army but not part of the ig codex. I cant see that in the quotes you made.

 Mywik wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Creeds entry tells me to pick a unit in my army.

and in the context of the IG codex it is talking about a unit from the Forces of the Imperial Guard section as I have shown.

The rulebook tells me i am able to take allied detachments. Choosing an allied detachment is made during i choose my army. They are in fact part of my army. Where exactly am i disallowed to use his special rule on a unit that is part of my army but not part of the ig codex. I cant see that in the quotes you made.

Many of these rules that affect "your army" from past edition codex have been one by one FAQed to be only units within your codex, if creed one hasn't be sure it will soon be to be kept in order with the other gazillion rules that affect your army.

 Lord Yayula wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Creeds entry tells me to pick a unit in my army.

and in the context of the IG codex it is talking about a unit from the Forces of the Imperial Guard section as I have shown.

The rulebook tells me i am able to take allied detachments. Choosing an allied detachment is made during i choose my army. They are in fact part of my army. Where exactly am i disallowed to use his special rule on a unit that is part of my army but not part of the ig codex. I cant see that in the quotes you made.

Many of these rules that affect "your army" from past edition codex have been one by one FAQed to be only units within your codex, if creed one hasn't be sure it will soon be to be kept in order with the other gazillion rules that affect your army.

So until theres a faq stating otherwise this tactic would be allowed? Dont get me wrong i dont own creed nor do i plan to use it. I just want to understand what would prevent this tactic rules wise.

 Mywik wrote:
So until theres a faq stating otherwise this tactic would be allowed? Dont get me wrong i dont own creed nor do i plan to use it. I just want to understand what would prevent this tactic rules wise.

Only if you ignore the context of Creeds rule.

Creeds rule notes it works on your army. I have shown what 'Army' means in the IG codex, therefore this is the only thing creeds rule could possibly be referring to.

There is a definition of army in the BRB, but for the rule, since there is a conflict between the BRB and the Codex, guess which one trumps the other in this case...

 Mywik wrote:
The rulebook tells me i am able to take allied detachments. Choosing an allied detachment is made during i choose my army. They are in fact part of my army. Where exactly am i disallowed to use his special rule on a unit that is part of my army but not part of the ig codex. I cant see that in the quotes you made.

They are a part of your army, as the BRB defines it, but allied detachments are not included in the context of creeds rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
So until theres a faq stating otherwise this tactic would be allowed? Dont get me wrong i dont own creed nor do i plan to use it. I just want to understand what would prevent this tactic rules wise.

Only if you ignore the context of Creeds rule.

Creeds rule notes it works on your army. I have shown what 'Army' means in the IG codex, therefore this is the only thing creeds rule could possibly be referring to.

There is a definition of army in the BRB, but for the rule, since there is a conflict between the BRB and the Codex, guess which one trumps the other in this case...

 Mywik wrote:
The rulebook tells me i am able to take allied detachments. Choosing an allied detachment is made during i choose my army. They are in fact part of my army. Where exactly am i disallowed to use his special rule on a unit that is part of my army but not part of the ig codex. I cant see that in the quotes you made.

They are a part of your army, as the BRB defines it, but allied detachments are not included in the context of creeds rule.

I dont think that an argument about context would hold water in a dispute in an actual game. When my opponent tries to pull this on me and i have to argue why he can't i prefer actual rules stating that he cant do it. I feel like i would have to allow the move if he argues RAW. Not even for this particular case but in general.

The context has changed from your definition. "Army" does not mean the same thing as it meant in 5th edition, just as Rage does not mean the same thing as it did in 5th edition.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The context has changed from your definition. "Army" does not mean the same thing as it meant in 5th edition, just as Rage does not mean the same thing as it did in 5th edition.

Except Rage was and is a BRB rule.

Army has two definitions.

One in the BRB one in the Codex.

There is a conflict on what army means in reference to Creed's rule.

Guess which one trumps the other in the event of a conflict? (Page 7 right column last sentence has the answer).


P.S. The least advantageous interpretation is the more sporting way to play a rule if the rule is ambiguous.

 DeathReaper wrote:

P.S. The least advantageous interpretation is the more sporting way to play a rule if the rule is ambiguous.

This is always good advice, and I'd be inclined to follow it in this situation

Arguing what the rule book and codex means by 'army' is just going to lead to headaches. I would like to bring page 109 to your attention as an example as to why. In the section outlining Allied Detachments it explains that 'your army' can contain a number of primary and allied detachments. Then, in the last paragraph of this section, it goes on to state 'armies and allies' as if they are two separate entities. This is using the term army in two completely different ways in the same sub-section, on the same damn page at that. When the basic rule book uses the word army to mean both the primary detachment and the whole thing you are in trouble!

Doesn't help your situation any, I know, but I have grown to really despise the term 'army.' There is a lot of rules that either fail to function as intended or become way to over-powered if you use the argument that it is talking about just one codex. If you read it the other way, then a completely different set of rules become over-powered or no longer function as intended. You just can't win either way in this case, because the damn editors are so bad at their jobs. This is just made all the worse when you are trying to compare intent in a pre-6th edition codex with the 6th edition rule book using such poorly defined terms.

The only advise I can give is the same one Deathreaper put forth: Find out which interpretation creates the least amount of abusable situations and go with that one until the errata/new codex is released.

This has been gone over before. If a rule is restricted to the Codex, it will say so, either in the Codex or in the FAQ. (Otherwise all the FAQ entries that went back and restricted rules to only apply to their Codex would be silly.)

In addition, the Battle Brothers section says flat out that they can benefit one another.

BRB p112 wrote:Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:

Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities, and so on.

Creed can absolutely Infiltrate a Land Raider.

That being said, I'm not comfortable with the unit inside a Land Raider that Scouted making a first turn assault. I can see both sides, and I think it comes down to a single issue, which is that the position of a unit deployed within a vehicle is not clearly defined as being either A) the same as the vehicle (in which case they ARE re-deploying and changing their position) or B) simply 'within the vehicle' (in which case they end the Scout move fails to change their deployment position). If this came up in a tournament I was administering over, I would have to err on the side of caution and say that the unit can NOT assault.

Just to re-state what has already been brought up, the first turn assault restriction applies to PLAYER turn, not game turn. Just FYI.

In any event, I hope that helps.

So yes the LR can scout, but the embarked unit may not charge on the first turn, that seem to be the consensus? Ok, I can handle that. And yes I am aware that just means first player turn as was clarified in the FAQ.

In either case I suppose I'd be better off Scouting a Demolisher Russ Squadron