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.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding how a permissive ruleset works.

Does the unit have permission to embark?

Does the unit have permission to change its model's unit type?

Now if the answer to the above is yes to both you have permission for the unit to be embarked with their new unit type so then you need:

1) restriction on the unit being embarked (you have yet to show this as anything other than implied by omission).
2) an instruction to immediately disembark.

Please provide a page number and paragraph or direct quote for one of the above.

As claiming you didn't say you needed to be infantry to disembark:

[quote = ClockworkZion]
Oh, and by your own argument, even under the alternate reading you're proposing the unit still can't disembark. So don't stick them in a Land Raider because they'll get stuck there if they go Beasts the turn you're planning on disembarking them for an assault. Still broken.

You have yet to show actual permission to stay in the transport instead of it being illegally placed. You've given implied permissions, but no actual rule that specifically counters the rule that says only Infantry models are allowed in transports. Rules in writing trump implications here, this is RAW in YMDC, not "Implied Rules". If you're going to try and pound me for proof then you might actually want some of your own.

I've shown a rule that clearly says that the type of models allowed in a transport must be Infantry, all you've given me is an argument based on an implied permission to say based around not being told you can't (even though you really can't be there) and developer's intent. Bring some proof next time that you have something that says they are clearly allowed to stay inside (hint, nothing exists in the rulebook, the CSM codex or the supplement, I've looked).

Read my post more closely as well. I said more than once now, disembarking is a solution to clear up the rule dispute, but not a rule. The only RAW solution I can actually find involves destroying the unit (which comes from rules such as Deep Strike when it talks about legally placing models and units and how if they can't be legally placed they are destroyed).

So we have 3 solutions: 1 HWPI that clears up rules issues, 1 HWPI that ignores the issue or writes it off as implied permission, and an RAW that basically nukes the unit. I think we can stop running around the bush already. Don't like my response? Pester GW for a FAQ then because it's the only way any implied permissions will become actual permissions.

How is it illegally placed? I've shown permission to embark I've shown permission to change unit type. The rules not only allow the unit to be embark when beasts they actually force it upon you. So why would I need more permission to stay on board? You say the unit is illegally placed hut have failed so show a rule stating that.

If the rule said only infantry can be embarked you'd be right. But this is just like the old SM bike command squad being allowed to embark as they were still infantry and just followed the rules of bikes with no direct prohibition on bikes embarking. I have shown that the rules allow the unit to be on board and that the rules allow the unit to become beasts. Now show a restriction on beasts being in a transport vehicle or concede.

 FlingitNow wrote:
How is it illegally placed? I've shown permission to embark I've shown permission to change unit type. The rules not only allow the unit to be embark when beasts they actually force it upon you. So why would I need more permission to stay on board? You say the unit is illegally placed hut have failed so show a rule stating that.

What rule gives you the express permission to have Beasts in a Transport? It doesn't matter what implied rules you've dreamed up say, there is nothing that specifically remedies this situation like you claim. Specific trumps general, but there is no specific rule for this situation. You're the one saying I need to produce rules to counter your claim but you can't even produce a rule that counters the basic rules of the main rulebook.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If the rule said only infantry can be embarked you'd be right. But this is just like the old SM bike command squad being allowed to embark as they were still infantry and just followed the rules of bikes with no direct prohibition on bikes embarking. I have shown that the rules allow the unit to be on board and that the rules allow the unit to become beasts. Now show a restriction on beasts being in a transport vehicle or concede.

You're ignoring the fact that the rule only allows Infantry units to be inside the transport, regardless of how they got there. Claiming that the unit has implied permission is fine for HWIPI but your interpretation on HWIPI is no more valid than mine as there is no rule to allow them to be in the transport. The transport only has capacity for one unit type: Infantry. That's RAW. Any claim otherwise is fishing for rules that don't exist. There is a clear cut "here's the kind of unit that can be inside this vehicle" and you're trying to write it off with "well it doesn't say they can't be here" when the permissive ruleset doesn't give them the permission they need to be there.

I'm not from Missouri, but at this point I'm willing to move: show me an actual rule from the codex, the supplement or the rulebook that gives beasts permission to ever be in a transport and I'll concede to you. No implications, just a rule in black and white that says they can be there regardless of how they got there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
How do you know its not allowed in the transport? You've made that part up. How do you know you are allowed to remove them from the transport? You've made that part up as well.

They unit types listed as being permitted in the transport are Infantry and Independent Characters who are Infantry. That's it. That's all the capacity allows inside the vehicle as per it's own rules. I didn't "make that up", I just didn't ignore the inconvenient evidence that'd make the unit better.

As for removing them from a transport I did not say that was a rule, I said that was a way to solve the problem of a rule being broken. If you'd prefer another way is having the unit destroyed as it can't exist there and it can't get out (without some concession at least). Yippee.

Here is the problem. There a no unit types listed as being alloed in the transport. It says independent characters (special rule not unit type) and infantry units (looks an awful lot like a unit type, but as we will discuss, is not).

Units do not have unit types. Models have unit types and sometimes the models that make up a single unit have more then one unit type. There phrase "infantry unit" has no value within the rules. All we know for sure is that an "infantry unit" is a unit. If you give it any deeper value then you may be playing how the rule was intended, but you are making it up to do so.

You simply cannot know,because they have not told you, that a unit made entirely of beasts is not an infantry unit.

Is a unit of 10 Kroot and a Kroothound an infantry unity? The hound is a beast, but its also optional and over 90% of the unit is infantry. Its certainly not a beast unit. What if the 10 kroot die and only the hound is left, does it become a beast unit? If you answered these question with anything other than "I don't know" then you made it up. These are things the rules simply do not address.

Deciding that a unit comprised entirely of models with the beast unit types violates the maximum transport capacity rules, no matter how accurate to the intent of the author, is making up rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Just because each model in the unit is no longer has the infantry unit type does not necessarily mean they are no longer an infantry unit in any respect. You can't point to a rule that defines an infantry unit. You can't point to a rule that gives you permission to 'fix' something when that something is "impossible",

Slaves to the Voices:
Beast Form: The unit's type changes from Infantry to Beasts.

The unit stops being Infantry completely until the start of your next turn. It no longer has the Infantry type and now has the Beast type instead. Now I ask you to stop "making things up" as you're trying to create a situation that doesn't exist that gives the unit both the "Beast" and "Infantry" types at the same time.

This is even worse as units don't have types. Clearly this rule and the transport capacity rules make us of a units with types so for the sake of argument we have to conclude that models have units types, and units also have a separate type. (but we are making up rules if we do)

If you assume the intent was "The unit type of the models in the unit changes from infantry to beast" then again you have made it up to fix a gap GW left you with but lets go with that. How do you know that its not an infantry unit comprised on models with the beast unit type? To be clear the models don't have the infantry unit type. Not a single one, they all only have the beast unit type but they are all in an infantry unit.

Now lets go with what the rule actually says. The unit changes its type from infantry to beast. So technically its a bunch of models with the infantry unit type making up a beast unit. Yes you can make a clear case that this exceeds the transport capacity and is impossible. If you do anything about it, forcing the unit to disembark, destroying the unit, anything at all then you've made it up. No where does the book tell you how to deal with an embarked unit that now exceeds the capacity.

In short you have to make it up to play out this scenario, so when some one says that toy're making up rules, don;t deny it. Point out that you are making up rules because GW failed to provide any .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
What rule gives you the express permission to have Beasts in a Transport?

What gibes you the express permission to remove beasts that are illegally in a transport? You've heard the expression two wrong don't make a right. If you remove the beasts, destroy the beasts or so anything to the beasts you are doing so with out permission and that's just as bad as letting them stay in the transport.

Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:

In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.

An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.

Do the rules give you permission for the situation of a unit of possessed with the unit type beasts to be embarked on a transport?

The ONLY answer to that question based in RaW is yes. Absolutely cut and dry the rules give permission for this situation to occur.

So if you want that situation to be illegal you need to find a restriction on that situation. That is exactly how a permissive ruleset works. You have permission for something to occur to stop that thing from being legal you need denial of that permission from some restriction.

Granted the whole way the transport and voices rules refer to units with a unit type means the whole thing is a mess RaW as DJGietzen has detailed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:

In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.

An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.

Right, but that means nothing when discussing infantry units.

Unit types have nothing to do with actual units. Its a stupid name.

"Unit Types" is pretty clearly explained, it's just being ignored by people around here for convenience. Page 44 says models have a Unit Type and that the Unit Type is part of their characteristic profile.

In fact, when I flip open my codex it lists "Unit Type" in the characteristic profile.

It exists, it's defined and people are pulling things out of god knows where to try and claim it's not at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:

In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.

An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.

Right, but that means nothing when discussing infantry units.

Unit types have nothing to do with actual units. Its a stupid name.

Unit Types define what kind of unit it is. Infantry is a type of unit listed in Unit Types. When you look at the Possessed characteristic profile under "Unit Type" it says "Infantry". When Beast Form occurs that "Infantry" becomes "Beasts" changing the Unit Type.

You're bending over backwards to justify things at this point.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:

In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.

An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.

Finally you realise unit type is a property of models not units.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:

In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.

An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.

Finally you realise unit type is a property of models not units.

So your entire stance relies on the idea that Infantry Units are not made of Infantry models and can be any model type if I get it at this point. Because that's the only way you can argue that the unit of beasts can be in there because they're somehow still an Infantry unti.

Fine. Nothing stopping bikes, calvary, or any other unit from getting in there since "Infantry unit" seems to be whatever we feel like at this point.

If we're beyond that silliness of trying to create holes in the rules to support our arguments (something the pair of you have claimed I've done ironically) and look at a unit as being composed of whatever models are in it and define the type that way (Infantry unit, Beast unit, Calvary unit, Bike unit) the rules make perfect sense and the transport rules work correctly for embarking and disembarking and what units can be inside the transport for everything except for the Possessed in that one situation.

So we have two rules interpretations involving unit types, one the breaks the game and the other that works almost everytime. Which is the one you'd take again?

ClockworkZion wrote:You have yet to show actual permission to stay in the transport instead of it being illegally placed.

Actually we have. The result of legal Embarkation and subsequent transformation is a legal process set forth by the rules. Units are allowed to disembark and vehicles are allowed to move. No more permission is needed.

You keep trying to put forth a lack of permission as a denial. It is not. A stated capacity limit of 1 unit of infantry with X models does not relate to other unit types. Beasts have no stated or implied capacity limit in a transport.

ClockworkZion wrote:
You've given implied permissions, but no actual rule...

We have given more than implied permission. Indirect but not merely implied.

ClockworkZion wrote:
...that specifically counters the rule that says only Infantry models are allowed in transports.

No rule says this. Intentionally or not you have actually fabricated this rule.

ClockworkZion wrote:
Rules in writing trump implications here, this is RAW in YMDC, not "Implied Rules". If you're going to try and pound me for proof then you might actually want some of your own.

Yes. We have quoted direct statements which in combination lead to the very result you are claiming is only implied. It is not. It is the outcome of several rules plainly stated. We have shown you ours now show us yours.

ClockworkZion wrote:
I've shown a rule that clearly says that the type of models allowed in a transport must be Infantry, all you've given me is an argument based on an implied permission to say based around not being told you can't (even though you really can't be there) and developer's intent. Bring some proof next time that you have something that says they are clearly allowed to stay inside (hint, nothing exists in the rulebook, the CSM codex or the supplement, I've looked).

-At most you've shown that infantry models count against capacity limits. This has no bearing on Beasts as the limit only counts infantry.
-No implied permission. Just permission. We have shown that the text indirectly says you can. Nothing implied about it.
-Rules place them there and do not expel them. The result is that they stay there.

ClockworkZion wrote:
Read my post more closely as well. I said more than once now, disembarking is a solution to clear up the rule dispute, but not a rule. The only RAW solution I can actually find involves destroying the unit (which comes from rules such as Deep Strike when it talks about legally placing models and units and how if they can't be legally placed they are destroyed).
So we have 3 solutions: 1 HWPI that clears up rules issues, 1 HWPI that ignores the issue or writes it off as implied permission, and an RAW that basically nukes the unit. I think we can stop running around the bush already. Don't like my response? Pester GW for a FAQ then because it's the only way any implied permissions will become actual permissions.

-Immediate disembark sounds ok for a house rule.
-Allowing them to stay embarked is RAW.
-If anything is going to get destroyed go with the transport for a good narrative. Again a possible house rule.

After reading to end of page 2, a thought popped into my head. In my group we have a couple of tall buildings, tall enough that you auto-fail impact tests (6 floors, each a small building, each about 3" high). These are actual buildings, not ruins. Lets say, theoretically a unit of CS possessed are scaling up the levels of said building to go mulch a unit of scouts sitting on the top manning a quadgun. for the first 4 levels everything's peachy. they hit the 5th level and turn into beasts. Since buildings follow the rules for vehicle embarcation, according to some, the possessed would immediately be ejected from that level, because they are not Infantry. They then are forced to take impact tests, which they automatically fail due to the height, and die. Yay .

Putting aside the who unit types has nothing to do with units debate, as you clearly don't understand the points I am trying to make...

I'll give you that a unit of beasts inside a transport exceeds the transport capacity but how they got in there, while a bit of a loop-hole, is completely legal. No rules were broken to end up in an illegal situation. Please point out the rule that gives you permission to do anything about it? You don't have permission to fix this problem and any attempt to fix it just means you need to break more rules.

If anything, precedent would be that legal actions that would result in an illegal situation are not allowed to take place. In this case the unit cannot turn into beasts while in a transport, but again we are making it up as we go along here. This is no more a valid alution that kicking them from the transport or destroying the unit.

The best solution, the one that while fostering an illegal situation does not require us to make up new rules to deal with it, is to simply ignore the problem.

This needs an FAQ, an FAQ we won't get because GW apparently doesn't write them any more.

The precedent of previous editions of the codex is for the designers to remember to account for otherwise illegal situations and include a clause on how to correct the situation. See 3rd edition and "What happens if the greater demon shows up while the host in a transport?"

On the other hand, the alternative interpretation of the problematic rule is much simpler than you're making it out to be.

What's the restriction on the number of units that can be in the transport: One infantry unit plus whatever attached IC's (where only Infantry IC's are allowed).
Does that place a limit on the number of non-Infantry units? No, because those units don't have any way of getting embarked in the normal order events, so there's no need for any such limit.

The rules don't bother to prohibit embarking a bag full of plastic army men onto the transport for the same reason--There's no point in prohibiting otherwise impossible interactions.

So that leaves you with two options:
1. Straight forward play as written: You haven't exceeded the limit of one infantry unit, but the beast unit has no way of getting out.
2. In the spirit of 3rd edition, the possessed models stumble blindly out of the transport that no longer accepts their presence.

Just don't taunt the rules and try to embark another infantry unit while the previous one has been turned into beasts.

 solkan wrote:

1. Straight forward play as written: You haven't exceeded the limit of one infantry unit, but the beast unit has no way of getting out.

There is no restriction on what type of units or models may disembark from a transport. They would be able to get out through the usual method with out any issue.

Seems there is a clear precidence with existing rules for how to handle this situation; Champion of Chaos rule.

Outside this we mainly seem to be on speculation or pushing RAW into a situation it was never designed for - which is creating other issues.

 Nem wrote:
Seems there is a clear precidence with existing rules for how to handle this situation; Champion of Chaos rule.

Outside this we mainly seem to be on speculation or pushing RAW into a situation it was never designed for - which is creating other issues.

Not really a clear precedent the CoC rule is really quite different. Firstly the chances of it occurring whilst embarked are pretty small, indeed it is zero if you're in a Landraider (or any other transport with no firepoints). Also the change is permanent and a new unit is created (the old model is removed as casualty and counts as VPs). Also there is direct instructions to disembark so this is not a case of a similar issue where GW fixed by FaQ.

This is a 1 in 3 chance each turn and no new unit is created and the unit can return to being infantry the following turn. There is no instruction to disembark and no rule is broken by them remaining on board. Also making them disembark makes putting them in a transport non - viable ever despite another result clearly showing putting them in transports was an intended use. Here the RaI is pretty clear to me and when you look at it the RaW is likewise clear. They remain embarked as there is literally nothing even implying that they have to get out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So your entire stance relies on the idea that Infantry Units are not made of Infantry models and can be any model type if I get it at this point. Because that's the only way you can argue that the unit of beasts can be in there because they're somehow still an Infantry unti. 

When have I ever said that? All I've said is an infantry unit is not a term defined in the rules and this causes problems when GW keep using that and other similar terms. My argument does not rely on a particular definition of "Infantry Unit". I just understand the rules well enough to point out what a mess the use of that term is. Something I pointed out pages ago.

If we're beyond that silliness of trying to create holes in the rules to support our arguments (something the pair of you have claimed I've done ironically) and look at a unit as being composed of whatever models are in it and define the type that way (Infantry unit, Beast unit, Calvary unit, Bike unit) the rules make perfect sense and the transport rules work correctly for embarking and disembarking and what units can be inside the transport for everything except for the Possessed in that one situation. 

What about mixed units? Most competitive armies these days contain units with models with multiple different unit types. Again something that was pointed out a long time ago in the very same post where I explained unit types to you and why they don't apply to units. Please read what I've said in future when responding to me it will help you understand the rules quicker.

Hopefully you understand now how unit types work. Now read my posts again and you should learn how a permissive ruleset works and why you have permission (not implied permission actual permission) to have a unit of beasts embarked on a transport. Or read through Abandon's post as he explains the same thing in a slightly different way.

once you've done that if you still believe your interpretation is correct please post the rule denying permission for them to be embarked. Something you have repeatedly refused to do so far.

I love how the '1' result (Spirit Beacons) specifically mentions transports (grants unit and transport Shrouded) but they didn't make the connection to transports for 2.

I think it would be hilarious if it functioned like clown cars:
As long as all the currently embarked Possessed units are in beast form, a new unit can embark as Infantry (since the vehicle hasn't met it's maximum capacity of 1 infantry unit). It would give the chaos armada something to do as it journeyed through space and then BOOM deploy it and out pops 20 different units of possessed (and 10 more have to stay inside because they rolled beast).

If the unit is already embarked then nothing happens.

The rule for embarking says "only infantry models can embark on transports"

RAW you are already embarked, so you may not try to embark.

RAW there is nothing about remaining embarked, or being embarked, so there is no RAW about you having to get out of the transport if your unit type changes from infantry, as you satisfied the requirement of Infantry to embark.

HIWPI, would be the same


regarding the spawn entry on chaos table


This of course has 0 rules bearing under the crimson fists entry, and in some ways also isn't legit as the spawn model is on a larger base than a normal chaos lord/terminator lord and there is nothing about the base size changing for the possessed.

Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.

I think people realize beasts are not allowed to embark.

The issue with the chaos champion spawn table is spawn are 'very bulky'

whereas beasts do not pick up the bulky, very bulky, or extremely bulky rules.

Technically the models type has changed to a type that is not allowed to embark on vehicles, but they do not take up any extra space like a spawn, deamon price, or greater daemon[for references to past editions where squad leaders could become greater daemons].

transport capacity for chaos rhino for example lists "ten models" not "ten infantry"

I would not let the player embark the models onto a transport, but if they were already embarked I would let a chaos player keep them embarked HIWPI, since this is pretty deep into the there are no RAWs for what would happen.

Pyrian wrote:
Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.

Which is cool but as pointed out "1 infantry unit" isn't a defined capacity in the rules and is effectively meaningless to this situation. Also what are you suggesting happens? I roll that they turn into beasts and I lose the game because I'm cheating? What? Wgat are you suggesting happens RaW?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.

Which is cool but as pointed out "1 infantry unit" isn't a defined capacity in the rules

It doesn't have to be explicitly defined in the rules, as it is defined in normal English

Page 78: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters"

a single Infantry, means just what is says, One Infantry unit, it can not carry any other types of units because they exceed its capacity of a single Infantry unit.

Transports can only carry infantry and, unless otherwise noted, nothing else...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.

Which is cool but as pointed out "1 infantry unit" isn't a defined capacity in the rules

It doesn't have to be explicitly defined in the rules, as it is defined in normal English

Page 78: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters"

a single Infantry, means just what is says, One Infantry unit, it can not carry any other types of units because they exceed its capacity of a single Infantry unit.

Transports can only carry infantry and, unless otherwise noted, nothing else...

So what is an Infantry unit? Just so we are clear?

What happens when a unit of possessed becomes beasts whilst embarked on a transport?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So what is an Infantry unit? Just so we are clear?

Units page 3 and Infantry unit page 44 answer this question

What happens when a unit of possessed becomes beasts whilst embarked on a transport?

RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport.

HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.

Units page 3 and Infantry unit page 44 answer this question

May be I'm dumb but I'm not quite getting it please explain? Is an infantry unit a unit comprised of some infantry models or a unit comprised of solely infantry models?

RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport. 

HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.

So by your reading the game breaks. Your HYWPI is noted and is for me a poor resolution I'd rather play by the clear RaI and the RaW that they can stay on board. But whayever houserules you and your group agree to is up to you

 FlingitNow wrote:

Units page 3 and Infantry unit page 44 answer this question

May be I'm dumb but I'm not quite getting it please explain? Is an infantry unit a unit comprised of some infantry models or a unit comprised of solely infantry models?

An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.

So by your reading the game breaks.

By everyone's reading The game breaks/No one knows. This is because only infantry can be embarked on a transport. If anything else is embarked on a transport it is not legally embarked and you have broken a rule.

The RAI is impossible to determine as we have no idea what the writers intended when they wrote the rules. We only have the RAW reading of the rules to go by.

Your HYWPI is noted and is for me a poor resolution I'd rather play by the clear RaI and the RaW that they can stay on board. But whayever houserules you and your group agree to is up to you

The RAW does not say that they can stay on board. That is 100% made up and false.

The Champion of Chaos rule is really similar to the situation at hand and as such is a great way to handle the HYWPI since there is precedent.

Going by RAW you explicitly cannot disembark unless you are infantry . You are are in an illegal state when you roll Beast on the chart , you cannot make the situation worse by performing an illegal act in order to end that state, otherwise you are involved in 2 illegal events not just 1. If you want to break the least number of rules (assuming entering an illegal state is 1 act) then the unit must remain aboard the transport until they are no longer beasts.

if you are especially rules lawyery you can look up the emergency disembark rules and argue about what happens if it explodes in your opponents turn. Then you can argue about whether another unit can jump in since there are no infantry aboard.

An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.

So an attached IC with infantry type would enable the squad to remain embarked?

The RAW does not say that they can stay on board. That is 100% made up and false.

RaW certainly does not require them to disembark. Regardless of reading. At best you have an implied restriction on them being inside vs direct permission for them to be in there.

The Champion of Chaos rule is really similar to the situation at hand and as such is a great way to handle the HYWPI since there is precedent.

Except of course it is not remotely similar the CoC rule creates a new unit normally resulting in the transport containing two units. The CoC rule is also quite unlikely to occur (indeed impossible if embarked on a Landraider) whilst this rule will happen on 1 in 3 turns they are embarked and whilst personally I would have Possessed in a transport I don't see why you feel the need to entirely remove the option from the codex in any sort of viable way. Do you like playing against the same lists over and over and hate for your opponent to have options in how they build their army?