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.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
White Scars terminators have the scout USR. They bestow it on their land raider. Land raider redeploys 12" before the game.

Game starts and you have terminators with the scout USR who have redeployed outside their DZ. No assault during the first player turn by this unit.

To claim that a unit with the scout USR granting it to their dedicated transport, which then scouts, and then try to assault claiming that the transport scouted but the unit did not, is about as rules lawyering/easter egging as possible IMO.

Arguing based on how you think the rule should work and insulting those who are discussing what the rule actually says isn't very polite.
Please back your assertion up with actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
White Scars terminators have the scout USR. They bestow it on their land raider. Land raider redeploys 12" before the game.

Game starts and you have terminators with the scout USR who have redeployed outside their DZ. No assault during the first player turn by this unit.

To claim that a unit with the scout USR granting it to their dedicated transport, which then scouts, and then try to assault claiming that the transport scouted but the unit did not, is about as rules lawyering/easter egging as possible IMO.

Arguing based on how you think the rule should work and insulting those who are discussing what the rule actually says isn't very polite.
Please back your assertion up with actual rules.

Do the terminators have the scout USR? yes
Did they redeploy using the scout USR? yes, without it their LR would not have it
Can they assault during the first player turn? no, they redeployed via the scout USR which they gifted to their DT

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Or if they are not, they must stay behind in the deployment zone.

I start a unit embarked on a Transport that has Scout (however it gets it). The embarked unit does not have Scout.
I use the Scout move to redeploy the Transport. According to you, the embarked unit must be left behind.
This would be redeploying the unit. The embarked unit does not have Scout and is not permitted to redeploy. Please explain how to resolve this issue.

Simple resolution, the passengers, while embarked, make the scout redeployment with the vehicle.

Correct.
The rule for units in transports is that you measure range to the unit via the vehicle hull, except for shooting.
So after the terminators and landraider redeploy, I'm going to measure range to the terminators via the land raider hull. They are now outside of your deployment zone, redeployed from where they started (which can also be measured from the vehicle hull).

It's really pretty simple.
The guys inside the transport started here "X".
Now you redeploy scouts.
Now the transport, and the guys inside are here "X".
Notice how they are someplace different? They have redeployed a measurable distance as a result of Scouting.

Eldrad's exception is telling you that the unit and transport count for 1 for purposes of how many you can redeploy. It is not clearly stating that the models inside don't count as redeploying, only that the models inside don't count against his limit.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
White Scars terminators have the scout USR. They bestow it on their land raider. Land raider redeploys 12" before the game.

Game starts and you have terminators with the scout USR who have redeployed outside their DZ. No assault during the first player turn by this unit.

To claim that a unit with the scout USR granting it to their dedicated transport, which then scouts, and then try to assault claiming that the transport scouted but the unit did not, is about as rules lawyering/easter egging as possible IMO.

Arguing based on how you think the rule should work and insulting those who are discussing what the rule actually says isn't very polite.
Please back your assertion up with actual rules.

Do the terminators have the scout USR? yes
Did they redeploy using the scout USR? yes, without it their LR would not have it
Can they assault during the first player turn? no, they redeployed via the scout USR which they gifted to their DT

The bolded is incorrect. They deployed into the vehicle. The vehicle redeployed. That's using actual rules.

pg 121 has all the relevant info as far as I'm concerned. A unit embarked in a transport and the transport itself are deployed together. That means both the unit and the transport are redeploying as scouts.

 DJGietzen wrote:
pg 121 has all the relevant info as far as I'm concerned. A unit embarked in a transport and the transport itself are deployed together. That means both the unit and the transport are redeploying as scouts.

I do not see this "deployed together" on the page you referenced.

Can you be more specific, para/sentence? I could be over looking it.

40k-noob wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
pg 121 has all the relevant info as far as I'm concerned. A unit embarked in a transport and the transport itself are deployed together. That means both the unit and the transport are redeploying as scouts.

I do not see this "deployed together" on the page you referenced.

Can you be more specific, para/sentence? I could be over looking it.

Its not spelled out so dos'nt realy add much to the discussion. But what it boils down to for me is that the transport and the unit inside are taken a single FoC choice, 121 describes multiple unit choices as being separate for all things. This isn't true for transports and units. Sometimes it is and sometimes its not. Looking at it the way I do if the transport and riders are different units for deployment then when you redploy one via scout and not the other the other models may not be relocated. They should end up on the table where the transport was. I have no solid foundation for this belief as far a s RAW is concerned.

 DJGietzen wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
pg 121 has all the relevant info as far as I'm concerned. A unit embarked in a transport and the transport itself are deployed together. That means both the unit and the transport are redeploying as scouts.

I do not see this "deployed together" on the page you referenced.

Can you be more specific, para/sentence? I could be over looking it.

Its not spelled out so dos'nt realy add much to the discussion. But what it boils down to for me is that the transport and the unit inside are taken a single FoC choice, 121 describes multiple unit choices as being separate for all things. This isn't true for transports and units. Sometimes it is and sometimes its not. Looking at it the way I do if the transport and riders are different units for deployment then when you redploy one via scout and not the other the other models may not be relocated. They should end up on the table where the transport was. I have no solid foundation for this belief as far a s RAW is concerned.

Well the page you reference makes one thing clear. The DT and the unit inside are two different units. The passengers are "deployed" within the DT.
If the DT scout redeploys the unit inside, is still "within" and thus has not Scout redeployed.


Cheesy, prolly not RAI, but legal IMO.

Banbaji wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
Ok so none of you read the rule or didn't read it correctly.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"

The terminators have scout thus conferring it to the land raider. I wanted to do this same thing but saw the problem almost right away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also this treats the unit type as the vehicle for redeployment distance still giving you the 12"

I do not see how it matters how the land raider got scout. The point is that it has scout, and can thus make the scout redeploy, which people are saying does not equate to the terminators themselves redeploying. You have not addressed the latter.

 Talfrost wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
B: A land speeder storm isn't an assault vehicle. .

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the LSS an Open-topped vehicle?

Sorry you are right but they still need to scout move to get the distance for a turn one assault. So it still wouldn't work.

Why wouldn't it work? Your previous argument was based off of the Terminators giving the LR scout being the part that dissallowed the charge, I was under the impression (I cannot double check currently, so please correct me if I am wrong) that a LSS has scout as one of its special rules, thus it is not being conferred by the scout squad, which counters your argument as far as I can tell.

The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit . That is how the transport has scout . Thus all the models count as having done the scout redeployment.

 Talfrost wrote:
The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit .

No, they're not.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit .

No, they're not.

Ok then the land raider cannot scout as the terminators have scout . Not the land raider. READ THE RULE PLEASE.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"


The fact is they deploy together thus when the terminators scout inside the transport (which is a redeploy) the land raider goes with them.
Otherwise this entire rule is only valid for an outflank maneuver if you are in a dedicated transport.

rigeld2 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
White Scars terminators have the scout USR. They bestow it on their land raider. Land raider redeploys 12" before the game.

Game starts and you have terminators with the scout USR who have redeployed outside their DZ. No assault during the first player turn by this unit.

To claim that a unit with the scout USR granting it to their dedicated transport, which then scouts, and then try to assault claiming that the transport scouted but the unit did not, is about as rules lawyering/easter egging as possible IMO.

Arguing based on how you think the rule should work and insulting those who are discussing what the rule actually says isn't very polite.
Please back your assertion up with actual rules.

Do the terminators have the scout USR? yes
Did they redeploy using the scout USR? yes, without it their LR would not have it
Can they assault during the first player turn? no, they redeployed via the scout USR which they gifted to their DT

The bolded is incorrect. They deployed into the vehicle. The vehicle redeployed. That's using actual rules.

So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit .

No, they're not.

Ok then the land raider cannot scout as the terminators have scout . Not the land raider. READ THE RULE PLEASE.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"


The fact is they deploy together thus when the terminators scout inside the transport (which is a redeploy) the land raider goes with them.
Otherwise this entire rule is only valid for an outflank maneuver if you are in a dedicated transport.

LOL posting in BIGGER and BOLD type doesnt make you right. Especially when the Scout rules says other wise.

"If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport "

Confers, as in the DT now has the Scout rule.

40k-noob wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit .

No, they're not.

Ok then the land raider cannot scout as the terminators have scout . Not the land raider. READ THE RULE PLEASE.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"


The fact is they deploy together thus when the terminators scout inside the transport (which is a redeploy) the land raider goes with them.
Otherwise this entire rule is only valid for an outflank maneuver if you are in a dedicated transport.

LOL posting in BIGGER and BOLD type doesnt make you right. Especially when the Scout rules says other wise.

"If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport "

Confers, as in the DT now has the Scout rule.

I said that it has scout in an earlier post , I was simply making a point . The fact is the terminators redeployed with it which means they did a scout redeploy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I just called Games Workshop and they said they count as all having scouted thus NO CHARGE LIKE I SAID . Call them yourself at 1-800-394-4263 got customer service . They said they'd contact the FAQ team to have it posted.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

Except the DT is redeploying. The embarked unit has not - it embarked into the transport and is still there.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

Except the DT is redeploying. The embarked unit has not - it embarked into the transport and is still there.

and it has redeployed by virtue of being embarked.

 Talfrost wrote:

Ok then the land raider cannot scout as the terminators have scout . Not the land raider. READ THE RULE PLEASE.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"
[/size]

The fact is they deploy together thus when the terminators scout inside the transport (which is a redeploy) the land raider goes with them.
Otherwise this entire rule is only valid for an outflank maneuver if you are in a dedicated transport.

Instead of being rude, perhaps you should realize that what you cited does not say that they're one unit. Which is what you said.

I said that it has scout in an earlier post , I was simply making a point . The fact is the terminators redeployed with it which means they did a scout redeploy.

They deployed inside the transport. The unit is still embarked after the redeployment. Where did the embarked unit redeploy?

Oh and I just called Games Workshop and they said they count as all having scouted thus NO CHARGE LIKE I SAID . Call them yourself at 1-800-394-4263 got customer service . They said they'd contact the FAQ team to have it posted.

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

Except the DT is redeploying. The embarked unit has not - it embarked into the transport and is still there.

and it has redeployed by virtue of being embarked.

The unit deployed into the transport. The unit is still embarked afterward. Where was the redeployment?
Please cite where it happens.

Sounds similar to IG infantry platoons in general and Al'Rahems special rule specifically.

All platoon units are all deployed at the same time, even though they are comprised of different units. Similar to a unit and DT are deployed at the same time, even though they are different units. As with Al'Rahems rule that an infantry platoons must outflank, the whole of the platoon is deployed at once. This would be no different to a unit and it's DT deploying together then redeploying together.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

So I just talked to John at GW support. He said it works.

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

GW called they said stop being rude. The phone in GW is for customer complaints and children eating glue not FAQ guidance. An argument from authority doesn't hold weight in the forums due to the fact it's a logical fallacy in this case. GW phone staff do not write the rules, they are not subject matter experts and just happen to work for the company. I've schooled a GW employee on rules a few times over the years and while I'm often mistaken on rules clashes I understand that nobody can easily understand and remember the monolithic works of GW in their head and relate it easily. Do not expect anyone to take an unverified source as an absolute judgement on a question; either in real life or on the internet.

I agree with Rigeld. There is a unit making use of the scout USR but due to the wording of the scout rules there is no restriction on the embarked unit making an assault... yet.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

GW called they said stop being rude. The phone in GW is for customer complaints and children eating glue not FAQ guidance.

I agree with Rigeld. There is a unit making use of the scout USR but due to the wording of the scout rules there is no restriction on the embarked unit making an assault... yet.

You guys are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing now . It does't work and there will be an FAQ up soon . It's not being rude . You are both just ignorant and customer service is for what? customer service you say? Weird .

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

Except the DT is redeploying. The embarked unit has not - it embarked into the transport and is still there.

and it has redeployed by virtue of being embarked.

The unit deployed into the transport. The unit is still embarked afterward. Where was the redeployment?
Please cite where it happens.

Well when the transport is redeployed so is the unit, as the transport and by extension the unit that coexists within it, is not in the same place you deployed it in. Therefore both have been re-deployed to a different location than they were in when they were deployed.

Anyways you make the rules for 40k obviously and not GW . I'm gonna go play some games with my Tactical squad of stat line 10 marines that cost 0 points. What a joke.

 Talfrost wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

GW called they said stop being rude. The phone in GW is for customer complaints and children eating glue not FAQ guidance.

I agree with Rigeld. There is a unit making use of the scout USR but due to the wording of the scout rules there is no restriction on the embarked unit making an assault... yet.

You guys are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing now . It does't work and there will be an FAQ up soon . It's not being rude . You are both just ignorant and customer service is for what? customer service you say? Weird .

I'm arguing with you so you may read the rules we go by on this forum and not get banned for not engaging in discourse but rather name calling and ivory tower grandstanding.

Just play it that way until someone can prove you wrong. No one has so far. RAI are not real rules.

I think we should step back and agree GW makes rules with so many holes you can drive a CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT carrying the entire GW Legalis Ceastanddesistas organization through it.

GW RAI want to end first turn charges, but here is a case where the rule definitions leave it ambiguous and subject to interpretation that you can assault turn one.

While I was skeptical at the beginning of this thread, I'm starting to lean in rigeld's direction on this one, atleast until it is FAQd.

The one piece that is missing for me though is the wording that specifies that "deployment" in the case of a unit inside a transport refers to entering the transport, and not being placed on the table. While I can not find specific references in either case, I think it's common to think of a unit and it's transport deploying together as one unit, rather than a unit deploying into its transport and then the transport deploying onto the table.

Is there a reference, rigeld, that would clear this up? It seems to be the crux of your argument.

p121 wrote:Deploying Transport Vehicles
Units can be deployed in Transport vehicles if you wish - simply declare to your opponent which units are embarked where as part of your deployment.

Units can be deployed in transports. That's their deployment.

rigeld2 wrote:

p121 wrote:Deploying Transport Vehicles
Units can be deployed in Transport vehicles if you wish - simply declare to your opponent which units are embarked where as part of your deployment.

Units can be deployed in transports. That's their deployment.

and if their transport makes a re-deploy to they go with it or not?