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.

 Yarium wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
I disagree... according to the rulebook it seems very clear that BBs were very much intended to be able to start the game in a different (BB) factions transport. It's only - now - after glaring abuse (the Flesh Tearers taxi service) that they realize that was a mistake.

Well, there's enough ambiguity in the rulebook's use of terms and words that what is Intended is not necessarily clear. I have a feeling that the "taxi service" thing isn't what they were worried about, but rather that it made no sense that a unit of Guardsmen could survive the deployment process, but that is entirely a matter of personal opinion.

What I am looking forward to is that with GW returning to the older style of White Dwarf and being more interactive with their customer base than before, it will be easier to determine what they intended or not. If a White Dwarf comes out with a Battle Report where they state something as happening, and no one thought this to be the case, it'll turn a lot of heads and show us some of a rule's intention.

Ambiguity, ...in 40k?!? ...you don't say! ...still I think regarding this one issue of Battle Bros and transports they 'were' pretty clear. As to their sudden change of heart - yeah who knows really. GW has never seemed to fully grasp how crazy this community can get - I think situations like "guardsmen in drop-pods" or the Flesh-Tearers taxi-service always catches them by surprise.

I am also looking forward to the new WD, I've already pre-ordered!

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So now you are trying to claim that Come the Apocalypse units can begin the game embarked?

Not at all.

The rules that prevent Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the Apocalypse allies from embarking on your main faction's transports are these . . .





If not for those rules then Come the Apocalypse allies could embark on to the main faction's transports.

The broad permission to designate a unit as embarked upon a transport is provided in the rules on Deployment and Reserves






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Deploying a unit in a vehicle circumvents the embarking process (which you cannot do outside of the movement phase). Rather than embarking the unit onto the vehicle, deploying a unit in a vehicle puts the unit directly in a state of 'embarked upon' the vehicle.

Yes, and no.

For clarity, it circumvents the actual Movement Phase requirements and timing, but that is all it circumvents. It does not circumvent the other restrictions that come with embarking, such as unit type and size. To do more is to add to the rules without permission, or the alternative is to disconnect the "deploy in" from "embarking" completely which leads to problems with disembarking I have already addressed.

The embarking process is sidestepped entirely unless you can show how you get a movement phase during deployment. You have to adhere to the game provided definition of embarking and you are not allowed to make up any connections between 'deploy in' and 'embarking' that are simply not there in the rules.

But don't worry, Transport Capacity restrictions are applied while the unit is being deployed in the transport per this rule.

col_impact wrote:
The embarking process is sidestepped entirely unless you can show how you get a movement phase during deployment. You have to adhere to the game provided definition of embarking and you are not allowed to make up any connections between 'deploy in' and 'embarking' that are simply not there in the rules.

But don't worry, Transport Capacity restrictions are applied while the unit is being deployed in the transport per this rule.

Spoiler:

Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.

The process is skipped, yes, but "embarked" is still the past tense form of "embark" or "embarking". So, if one is "embarked" then one has did "embarking" in the past. And keep in mind that the Transport Capacity rules also use the term "embarked" as well. Such considerations are always in place, which was my point.

But hey, one can get around that if one thinks that "carry" does not mean "having such embarked on", too which goes back to the problems I identified earlier.

But that still doesn't explain where in your preferred form of eternal punishment that GW got the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to a Transport during Deployment, which is what got this conversation started.

col_impact wrote:

The player has the ability to assign the status 'embarked upon' this or that vehicle while sorting out reserves. But no actual embarking takes place. That would require a movement phase.

Well, there is a quote that doesn't cover vehicles in reserve, but does cover ones on the board. Page 132 in the main rulebook:

"Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in teir deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity". So, they have permission to deploy inside (i.e. embark) into a vehicle) that's on the board.

Of course, there's a side issue of this that now occurs to me. An allied faction couldn't be deployed into a fortification from a battle brother, since embarking and disembarking from a building works the same as for embarking and disembarking from a vehicle. For that matter, it could be argued that a building that's on the board that's unclaimed isn't the same faction as any of your units, so even if you had one of those in your deployment zone at the beginning of the game you wouldn't be able to deploy any units in it.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The embarking process is sidestepped entirely unless you can show how you get a movement phase during deployment. You have to adhere to the game provided definition of embarking and you are not allowed to make up any connections between 'deploy in' and 'embarking' that are simply not there in the rules.

But don't worry, Transport Capacity restrictions are applied while the unit is being deployed in the transport per this rule.

Spoiler:

Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.

The process is skipped, yes, but "embarked" is still the past tense form of "embark" or "embarking". So, if one is "embarked" then one has did "embarking" in the past. And keep in mind that the Transport Capacity rules also use the term "embarked" as well. Such considerations are always in place, which was my point.

You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:


But that still doesn't explain where in your preferred form of eternal punishment that GW got the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to a Transport during Deployment, which is what got this conversation started.

The Draft FAQ has inserted a distinction between permission to be embarked upon a transport during deployment and the permission to embark upon a transport in a movement phase.

The distinction wasn't there before the Draft FAQ but it is possible to make a distinction. This was done to nerf Battle Brothers.

col_impact wrote:


You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.

Actually, for transports on the board, it states you may be deployed (present tense, not past "may have been deployed") into a transport during the deployment stage, so during the deployment step you treat those as embarking into the transports at that time.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.

Actually, for transports on the board, it states you may be deployed (present tense, not past "may have been deployed") into a transport during the deployment stage, so during the deployment step you treat those as embarking into the transports at that time.

Where does it say that you treat 'deployed in' as 'embarking in'? You are reading in to the rules. Please stick to the rules as they are written.

This is the definition of Embarking. It has nothing to do with deployment.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.

Actually, for transports on the board, it states you may be deployed (present tense, not past "may have been deployed") into a transport during the deployment stage, so during the deployment step you treat those as embarking into the transports at that time.

Where does it say that you treat 'deployed in' as 'embarking in'? You are reading in to the rules. Please stick to the rules as they are written.

This is the definition of Embarking. It has nothing to do with deployment.

Spoiler:

Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should be taken as normal. The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

If deploying is different than embarking, then we have other problems. It's the rules for embarking that say an entire unit must be embarked if any part of the unit is embarked. If deploying is different, that limitation is not activated, and you could have a unit partially deployed inside the transport and partially outside the transport.

EDIT: Also, the embarking rules give you the example that you cannot embark on a Rhino or Razorback if you are in Terminator armor. If deploying is different than embarking, then I guess it's okay?

 doctortom wrote:


If deploying is different than embarking, then we have other problems. It's the rules for embarking that say an entire unit must be embarked if any part of the unit is embarked. If deploying is different, that limitation is not activated, and you could have a unit partially deployed inside the transport and partially outside the transport.

EDIT: Also, the embarking rules give you the example that you cannot embark on a Rhino or Razorback if you are in Terminator armor. If deploying is different than embarking, then I guess it's okay?

Do you see some other definition for Embarking than the one I have provided? If you do, please share. Otherwise we need to stick with the definitions and rule we have.


The Deployment rules reference the Transport Capacity and the Transport capacity of the Rhino reads thusly . . .

I attempted to post this earlier but Dakka went down for maintenance.

Col_Impact: an embarked unit is never moving within 1" of the transport. The unit is not moving at all, and is not even on the table.

The same new FAQs that restrict Battle Brothers from beginning the game embarked also states that the embarked unit does not interact with anything on the table other than shooting out of fire points(or no escape on an open-topped transport)

col_impact wrote:You don't have permission to reference some embarking that occured in the past. The game literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport and sidesteps the embarking process entirely. If you try to add an embarking process into the past you are reading in to the rule and not adhering to the rules.

Actually you do when that involves other things related to or uses conjugations of those words in cooperation with their rules. And I have already addressed this very topic, as it is right before you came in. Can you demonstrate where a temporal conjugation is completely separated from other temporal conjugation forms of this word? I cannot. So separating "embarked" from "embarking" is ridiculous and rather incompetent without written evidence to support it.

The game does not "literally 'spawns' the unit 'embarked upon' the transport ". If you want to quibble about how you are not to use words not in the rulebook, do not do so yourself.

The game literally states that "Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles". Deployed is an action term used in several points of the game to indicate when a unit is placed on the table such as Moving On From Reserves and Deep Strike.

There is more, but it is better addressed later.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
But that still doesn't explain where in your preferred form of eternal punishment that GW got the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to a Transport during Deployment, which is what got this conversation started.

The Draft FAQ has inserted a distinction between permission to be embarked upon a transport during deployment and the permission to embark upon a transport in a movement phase.

The distinction wasn't there before the Draft FAQ but it is possible to make a distinction. This was done to nerf Battle Brothers.

That's not the point. The FAQ is to be answering the intentions of the company and developers. That means that they NEVER intended for it to be allowed to embark on Battle Brother Transports before this Draft FAQ. If it was an actual print error, this would be in Errata.

So, I will state again, since it is not in Errata and you do not pay attention, where in this current rulebook did you find the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to Transports when there is a specific line that allows them to do so?

col_impact wrote:Do you see some other definition for Embarking than the one I have provided? If you do, please share. Otherwise we need to stick with the definitions and rule we have.

The Deployment rules reference the Transport Capacity and the Transport capacity of the Rhino reads thusly . . .

Spoiler:

Transport Capacity: Ten models. It cannot carry models with the Bulky, Very Bulky or Extremely Bulky special rules.

Now, I come back to the part which I talked about earlier.

Either "embarked" means "having gone through embarking at a previous point" as a past tense conjugation implies, or it means something else. If you can provide another definition, then do so.

The term "carry" is used in Transport Capacity and other places, but never defined. With Transports, we can only assume this means "embarked" as any other meaning creates some serious problems which I will go in to later.

The term "deploy inside" is used during Deployment, but again, never defined further. In this case, we can only assume this also means "embarked" as any other meaning creates those same problems.

The problem with considering "carry" or "deployed inside" as not associated with "embarked" or "embarking" comes along when you go to Disembark. Disembarking can only be performed by models which are "embarked", if you want the quote, look at an earlier post in this thread where I went over this before or just look up the very first paragraph of Disembarking. This means that if the Transport is just "carrying" the unit or the unit was just "deployed inside" the Transport without being "embarked" (the past tense of "embarking", remember), they cannot get out unless the Transport literally Explodes! If a Transport is Wrecked, the unit is to disembark. If the Transport Explodes!, the unit is placed where the Transport was after it is removed.

TL;DR: Do not try and rules-lawyer a separation between "embarked", "embarking, "carry", or "deploy in" or I can rules-lawyer it even harder for your units to even get out of the Transport. Some leeway is needed and proper cross connections between terms needs to be used, even if not properly defined, otherwise the game breaks and no one has a fun game.

The rules allow you to place a unit in an "embarked upon" state in a Transport while skipping altogether the process of Embarking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

That's not the point. The FAQ is to be answering the intentions of the company and developers. That means that they NEVER intended for it to be allowed to embark on Battle Brother Transports before this Draft FAQ. If it was an actual print error, this would be in Errata.

So, I will state again, since it is not in Errata and you do not pay attention, where in this current rulebook did you find the idea that Battle Brothers cannot embark on to Transports when there is a specific line that allows them to do so?

Do you have an official statement from GW that states that any rule changes must be errata'd? If so please share. If not, this is just an assumption on your part (and a bad one at that).

Also, I have nowhere said that the BRB makes it so BBs are not allowed to embark on friendly Transports. In fact, I have said that the BRB provides broad permission to put units into Transports is granted in the rules for Deployment and Reserves.

I have said that the Draft FAQ is what is now restricting the BBs from embarking upon friendly Transports during deployment.

col_impact wrote:
The rules allow you to place a unit in an "embarked upon" state in a Transport while skipping altogether the process of Embarking.

Do you have a rules quote on that? I am quite sure you are making it up, otherwise. Where does it state you are allowed to ignore the aspects of Embarking when placing a unit in an "embarked" state?

col_impact wrote:
Do you have an official statement from GW that states that any rule changes must be errata'd? If so please share. If not, this is just an assumption on your part (and a bad one at that).

Also, I have nowhere said that the BRB makes it so BBs are not allowed to embark on friendly Transports. In fact, I have said that the BRB provides broad permission to put units into Transports is granted in the rules for Deployment and Reserves.

I have said that the Draft FAQ is what is now restricting the BBs from embarking upon friendly Transports during deployment.

Do you have an official statement from GW that states the FAQ represents an official rules change? All the time before that these documents have been released, any official rules changes have been listed under Errata headings, while FAQs are their own House Rules. This has been posted on their site as such for quite some time till relatively recently. So, yeah, it is THEIR word on it. Not to mention, it is a standard convention in the environment to make actual changes to how a rule works as an errata.

And you were attempting to answer the question I made in a rhetorical sense. If you choose to respond to it, then answer the question properly.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


If deploying is different than embarking, then we have other problems. It's the rules for embarking that say an entire unit must be embarked if any part of the unit is embarked. If deploying is different, that limitation is not activated, and you could have a unit partially deployed inside the transport and partially outside the transport.

EDIT: Also, the embarking rules give you the example that you cannot embark on a Rhino or Razorback if you are in Terminator armor. If deploying is different than embarking, then I guess it's okay?

Do you see some other definition for Embarking than the one I have provided? If you do, please share. Otherwise we need to stick with the definitions and rule we have.


The Deployment rules reference the Transport Capacity and the Transport capacity of the Rhino reads thusly . . .

Spoiler:

Transport Capacity: Ten models. It cannot carry models with the Bulky, Very Bulky or Extremely Bulky special rules.

EDIT: Charistoph, that's a very good point about disembarking. They can't disembark if they haven't embarked in the transport in the first place. If they're in the transport without having embarked, they have no rules for disembarking (unless there's a special pysker rule or something like that the unit can use - they can't get out using normal disembarking methods if you go by the logic they're not embarking or embarked when deployed into the vehicle).

So you're oikay with deploying a unit half in and half out of a transport, since that is only defined by when they embark, and you claim that deployment has no relation to embarking?

col_impact wrote:
That's not the point. The FAQ is to be answering the intentions of the company and developers. That means that they NEVER intended for it to be allowed to embark on Battle Brother Transports before this Draft FAQ. If it was an actual print error, this would be in Errata.

So you're okay with no unit ever getting to deploy in an unoccupied neutral building in their deployment zone, since they're treated like vehicles in respect to people inside, and by definition an unclaimed building would not be the same faction as the unit you're deploying?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules allow you to place a unit in an "embarked upon" state in a Transport while skipping altogether the process of Embarking.

Do you have a rules quote on that? I am quite sure you are making it up, otherwise. Where does it state you are allowed to ignore the aspects of Embarking when placing a unit in an "embarked" state?

Embarking is a process that only happens during the movement phase. Apparently, I am the only one who is going to adhere to what the rules actually say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Do you have an official statement from GW that states that any rule changes must be errata'd? If so please share. If not, this is just an assumption on your part (and a bad one at that).

Also, I have nowhere said that the BRB makes it so BBs are not allowed to embark on friendly Transports. In fact, I have said that the BRB provides broad permission to put units into Transports is granted in the rules for Deployment and Reserves.

I have said that the Draft FAQ is what is now restricting the BBs from embarking upon friendly Transports during deployment.

Do you have an official statement from GW that states the FAQ represents an official rules change? All the time before that these documents have been released, any official rules changes have been listed under Errata headings, while FAQs are their own House Rules. This has been posted on their site as such for quite some time till relatively recently. So, yeah, it is THEIR word on it. Not to mention, it is a standard convention in the environment to make actual changes to how a rule works as an errata.

And you were attempting to answer the question I made in a rhetorical sense. If you choose to respond to it, then answer the question properly.

So you were unable to support what you claimed with an official statement. Got it.

You guys are arguing a moot point anyway - who cares?

The original question has been resolved regardless of whatever you guys are claiming or not claiming...

They are way off topic but the original question was never satisfactorily resolved.

We still have the issue that the written rules on alliances don't match the rest of the rules nor does any of it well explain multiple factions.

Prior to the FAQ the new levels of Alliances(the written for battle brothers, desparate allies, allies of convenience, and come the apocalypse) rules, which are explaining the symbols on the new matrix, worked perfectly as unit interaction between detachments as well.

This new FAQ makes the matrix and the written rules nonsensical to the point where we are left with 1 of 2 options:

1) the matrix lists battle brothers that cannot exist.

2) the matrix is right, but is now the relationship between all units in an army; which means no unit can deploy in any transport.

There is sort of a 3, treat each detachment as having a matrix-relationship with any other detachment(meaning you cannot take a gladius battle company for free Razorbacks then place the tac squads in FA drop pods from a CAD)

col_impact wrote:
Embarking is a process that only happens during the movement phase. Apparently, I am the only one who is going to adhere to what the rules actually say.

Maybe if you actually read what was written, you would actually understand what is being said and not take us off in to random tangents.

While the actual Movement Phase process is allowed to be skipped during Deployment for sake of speed and brevity, the restrictions for doing so and the classification of the results are still in play. Otherwise, you place yourself in to a position of being able to violate rules during deployment that you could not do in game OR place the units in a position that they cannot leave the Transport without it Exploding.

Remember, we are not told to separate the relationship between "embarked" and "embarking" that exists.

To tie this back in to the OP, again, the standards which would disallow any Battle Brother (that would otherwise qualify) from boarding a Transport during deployment would be the same standards which would also disallow any unit from the same codex or detachment (that would otherwise qualfiy) from boarding a Transport during Deployment.

Again, Battle Brothers reads as such:

Units from the same army that are Battle Brothers treat each other as ‘friendly units’ for all rules purposes.

A list of EXAMPLES (and not an exhaustive one) follows, which allows Embarking in Transports. So if Battle Brothers cannot embark during deployment, neither can Blood Angels getting on to a Blood Angels Storm Raven, Codex Devastators in a Codex Fast Attack Drop Pod, etc., even if they are in the same Detachment. They are all 'friendly units' to each other for all rules purposes.

This is a ridiculous concept, of course and denies what is allowed in the Deployment section, Dedicated Transport sidebars, or Preparing Reserves section.

col_impact wrote:
So you were unable to support what you claimed with an official statement. Got it.

More than you have, actually. I have precedent on my side. You just have an assumption that these FAQs make changes to the rules.

Of course, the current live documents list it as this:

Each update is split into three sections: Amendments, Errata and 'Frequently Asked Questions'. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the rulebook, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked QUestions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly asked questions about the rules.

So corrections of the rules are in the Errata. Changes are in the Amendments. FAQs are just how they would answer the situation.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Embarking is a process that only happens during the movement phase. Apparently, I am the only one who is going to adhere to what the rules actually say.

Maybe if you actually read what was written, you would actually understand what is being said and not take us off in to random tangents.

While the actual Movement Phase process is allowed to be skipped during Deployment for sake of speed and brevity, the restrictions for doing so and the classification of the results are still in play. Otherwise, you place yourself in to a position of being able to violate rules during deployment that you could not do in game OR place the units in a position that they cannot leave the Transport without it Exploding.

The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
They are way off topic but the original question was never satisfactorily resolved.

We still have the issue that the written rules on alliances don't match the rest of the rules nor does any of it well explain multiple factions.

Prior to the FAQ the new levels of Alliances(the written for battle brothers, desparate allies, allies of convenience, and come the apocalypse) rules, which are explaining the symbols on the new matrix, worked perfectly as unit interaction between detachments as well.

This new FAQ makes the matrix and the written rules nonsensical to the point where we are left with 1 of 2 options:

1) the matrix lists battle brothers that cannot exist.

2) the matrix is right, but is now the relationship between all units in an army; which means no unit can deploy in any transport.

There is sort of a 3, treat each detachment as having a matrix-relationship with any other detachment(meaning you cannot take a gladius battle company for free Razorbacks then place the tac squads in FA drop pods from a CAD)

No the original question was certainly explained. While the levels of Alliances may have "worked perfectly as unit interaction between detachments as well" - it really had nothing to do with detachments and specifically mentioned that your method of list-building is entirely irrelevant. The only time you ever refer to the "Allies" rules was when dealing with "models from different factions", period. Detachments or formations have nothing to do with this...

All of this embark, dissembark nonsense doesn't change that at all.

col_impact wrote:
The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

If you sidestep the Embarking process altogether, then they are not embarked. The actual Movement Phase and positions are not used, but everything else, of which Transport Capacity is a portion, is applied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
All of this embark, dissembark nonsense doesn't change that at all.

It goes in to WHY this ruling is being made. Col_impact believes that since since "embarking" is specifically addressed as being allowed for Battle Brothers, they cannot be allowed outside of doing an active "embarking process". I do believe that being considered "embarked" means that the "embarking process" has already been attended to outside of those basic parameters. And so the definition of what "embarked" means and entails is what lead to our discussion. Realistically speaking, the definition of "embarked" and to its timing is relatively meaningless over all to this discussion. It is a red herring that some people use to justify other things, like ignoring the Transport Capacity rules to get Praetorians on a Night Scythe.

That is because it carries less weight than an hydrogen atom in this discussion since that is only an example of what Battle Brothers can do. And if you are going to limit Battle Brothers, then you would be limiting any unit from going on to a Transport for the exact same reason without actually changing the rules by which Battle Brothers operate from.

Battle Brothers are treated as "friendly units". One of those things that are allowed to friendly units is embarking on a Transport. Now, you can either define "deploying in" or being "counted as embarked" as not embarking and that is the reason for this FAQ. Another reason claimed is for balance, but no reason is actually written for the answer to this question. That doesn't really matter since they didn't actually change the Battle Brother rules so it makes this whole situation a hot mess.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

If you sidestep the Embarking process altogether, then they are not embarked. The actual Movement Phase and positions are not used, but everything else, of which Transport Capacity is a portion, is applied.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants. Spontaneously the unit is "embarked upon" the Transport circumventing any Embarking process. The Embarking process can only occur in a movement phase, remember? So unless you can point to a rule that says otherwise, all you have is your unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. I will stick to the rules we have.

Trying to decipher "WHY the ruling is made" is a pointless quest, with a pointless outcome.

What does it matter? ...and further, no matter how much you guys think you can glean the design intent from the rules or FAQ we'll still never actually know unless they tell us - and it still won't change anything.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

If you sidestep the Embarking process altogether, then they are not embarked. The actual Movement Phase and positions are not used, but everything else, of which Transport Capacity is a portion, is applied.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants. Spontaneously the unit is "embarked upon" the Transport circumventing any Embarking process. The Embarking process can only occur in a movement phase, remember? So unless you can point to a rule that says otherwise, all you have is your unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. I will stick to the rules we have.

So you believe you can ignore everything regarding embarking when you can just declare a unit embarked? Doing so would get you no games from me. Keep batting away at that red herring.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants, no argument. But you have yet to demonstrate where the game logic creates a disconnect between "embarked" and "embarking" is made to justify your position. My position is that the timing and placement of such is hand-waved for game setup, and that is it, so it does not disconnect the temporal conjugation of the words. The "movement phase" for doing so is performed, fluff-wise/story-wise when the army is preparing to move out and engage the enemy, be it on ship for Drop Pods or a staging area for Rhinos and Trukks. This is done for the sake of smooth gameplay and setup, nothing more.

Or in other words, I am using the game logic provided in the print of the book to make these statements.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Trying to decipher "WHY the ruling is made" is a pointless quest, with a pointless outcome.

What does it matter? ...and further, no matter how much you guys think you can glean the design intent from the rules or FAQ we'll still never actually know unless they tell us - and it still won't change anything.

For future rules parsing and connecting rules interactions.

Why cannot a Battle Brother, who is a "friendly unit", not be embarked on a Transport when actual friendly units can?

Either no friendly unit can be embarked on a Transport during deployment, or they all can. If they all can, then Battle Brothers can be embarked on a Transport during deployment. If not, then getting any unit in to a Drop Pod/Rhino/Trukk that is not Dedicated to them is equally impossible, even from the same detachment.

It also either makes a lie of the allowance to have units embarked on a Transport in Reserves or Deployment, or when a unit is deployed in a Transport they are not embarked so cannot get off unless it receives an Explodes! result.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules make it clear that Embarking can only happen during a movement phase.

The rules allow for units to be designated as 'embarked upon' transports in reserves sidestepping the Embarking process altogether.

If you are subjecting units to the Embarking process during deployment you are breaking the rules.

If you sidestep the Embarking process altogether, then they are not embarked. The actual Movement Phase and positions are not used, but everything else, of which Transport Capacity is a portion, is applied.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants. Spontaneously the unit is "embarked upon" the Transport circumventing any Embarking process. The Embarking process can only occur in a movement phase, remember? So unless you can point to a rule that says otherwise, all you have is your unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. I will stick to the rules we have.

So you believe you can ignore everything regarding embarking when you can just declare a unit embarked? Doing so would get you no games from me. Keep batting away at that red herring.

Game logic can designate whatever state it wants, no argument. But you have yet to demonstrate where the game logic creates a disconnect between "embarked" and "embarking" is made to justify your position. My position is that the timing and placement of such is hand-waved for game setup, and that is it, so it does not disconnect the temporal conjugation of the words. The "movement phase" for doing so is performed, fluff-wise/story-wise when the army is preparing to move out and engage the enemy, be it on ship for Drop Pods or a staging area for Rhinos and Trukks. This is done for the sake of smooth gameplay and setup, nothing more.

Or in other words, I am using the game logic provided in the print of the book to make these statements.

I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

col_impact wrote:

I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

You never answered my question:

"So you're okay with no unit ever getting to deploy in an unoccupied neutral building in their deployment zone, since they're treated like vehicles in respect to people inside, and by definition an unclaimed building would not be the same faction as the unit you're deploying? "

Sticking to the Rules of the Game as stated, you would have to allow this, which indicates that your interpretation just causes further messes that need to be fixed.

col_impact wrote:
I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

You mean you will stick to your fantasy view of the rules of the game and of English and try to demean anyone who thinks differently.

If you have an actual quote to counter what I have stated, then provide it. The "fluff/story-wise" thing is actually part of the game logic now called "Forging the Narrative". It is used to hand-wave those things which would not otherwise make sense in the real world, such as a unit being embarked at the start of the game without actual doing all the fine details of embarking. It is considered having been done and not ignored in all respects.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

You never answered my question:

"So you're okay with no unit ever getting to deploy in an unoccupied neutral building in their deployment zone, since they're treated like vehicles in respect to people inside, and by definition an unclaimed building would not be the same faction as the unit you're deploying? "

Sticking to the Rules of the Game as stated, you would have to allow this, which indicates that your interpretation just causes further messes that need to be fixed.

I have no where stated that a unit needs to be in the same Faction as as something it deploys in. The rules provide broad permission for a unit to deploy 'inside' a building.

I have said that units cannot deploy inside Transports that they are Allies of Convenience, Desperate Allies, or Comes the Apocalypse Allies with. That kind of alliance imposes proximity restrictions that preclude deployment.

Buildings have no Faction and thus do not participate in the Allies chart.

So there is nothing to worry about the slippery slope you think you see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I will stick to the rules of the game. I don't use fluff as a source of rules. Thank you for making it clear to this thread that your opinion on this matter can be ignored by the serious player.

You mean you will stick to your fantasy view of the rules of the game and of English and try to demean anyone who thinks differently.

If you have an actual quote to counter what I have stated, then provide it. The "fluff/story-wise" thing is actually part of the game logic now called "Forging the Narrative". It is used to hand-wave those things which would not otherwise make sense in the real world, such as a unit being embarked at the start of the game without actual doing all the fine details of embarking. It is considered having been done and not ignored in all respects.

Inappropriate argument for this forum.

col_impact wrote:
I have no where stated that a unit needs to be in the same Faction as as something it deploys in. The rules provide broad permission for a unit to deploy 'inside' a building.

Yet, the rules state that you follow the rules for transports. "The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't move, they can be controlled by either side and units from either side can embark upon them.

col_impact wrote:
Buildings have no Faction and thus do not participate in the Allies chart.

Not necessarliy true. Fortifications are buildings and can be bought by one side, that is treated as the faction that bought it as part of their detachment that includes the fortification. Allies couldn't deploy into that. Not having a faction means it's not the same faction as a building that's claimed.

col_impact wrote:
ISo there is nothing to worry about the slippery slope you think you see.

Well, there's still that pesky "The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside" rule that applies when embarking, but doesn't apply during deployment if deployment doesn't count as embarking. Still a bit of a slippery slope there.

 doctortom wrote:


Not necessarliy true. Fortifications are buildings and can be bought by one side, that is treated as the faction that bought it as part of their detachment that includes the fortification. Allies couldn't deploy into that. Not having a faction means it's not the same faction as a building that's claimed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


Well, there's still that pesky "The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside" rule that applies when embarking, but doesn't apply during deployment if deployment doesn't count as embarking. Still a bit of a slippery slope there.

The rules give permission to deploy inside Transports and Buildings, not inside and outside.