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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW is RaI by definition. The rules didn't spontaneously appear, they were intentionally written. If they want to change how a rule works, they need to issue an errata (or Special Snowflake FAQ), otherwise RaW is how you play the game, just like EVERY OTHER GAME IN EXISTENCE.

RaW is not always RaI.

If it were then there would be no reason to change rules through errata and or FAQ's.

P.S. what is a "Special Snowflake FAQ"???

RaW is RaI. They change the RaW and RaI though errata, because they want different RaW and RaI.

A Special Snowflake FAQ is an FAQ that acts as errata, ignoring how the RaW works. Examples include the whole Daemon Stratagem Faction Keyword Nonsense, the Blood Angels Red Grail (in the index anyway) not stacking with Blood Chalice and Index Tank Commanders being prevented from ordering themselves.

That is incorrect. the fact that they change rules through errata and FAQ's show that sometimes RAI is not always what they write in the book, or do you really believe that they wrote the rules for assault weapons knowing that You may not pick a unit that Advanced this turn...

Furthermore FAQ's that change rules have been around for years. That is not news, that is just an FAQ from GW.

Wanting a properly written ruleset does not make me pedantic. If WotC can manage it (for all MTGs faults it's rules are written properly), so can GW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Wanting a properly written ruleset does not make me pedantic. If WotC can manage it (for all MTGs faults it's rules are written properly), so can GW.

You're telling me NO cards in MTG have erratas because things didnt work exactly as the designers intended? Get over yourself man, You're pedantry tops 9000

Transports and units inside not counting towards 50% reserves rules at deployment has been like that prior to 8th ed.

The main driver for this is that a dedicated transport is no longer locked to the unit it came with and the fact you can transport multiple units to its capacity in 8th that's bringing up this issue.

If something worked in a certain way forever, then a minor rule change comes, breaking the game/that particular rule. It sure doesn't sound like a RAI but an oversight on rulewriting/rule interaction..

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW is RaI by definition. The rules didn't spontaneously appear, they were intentionally written. If they want to change how a rule works, they need to issue an errata (or Special Snowflake FAQ), otherwise RaW is how you play the game, just like EVERY OTHER GAME IN EXISTENCE.

RaW is not always RaI.

If it were then there would be no reason to change rules through errata and or FAQ's.

P.S. what is a "Special Snowflake FAQ"???

RaW is RaI. They change the RaW and RaI though errata, because they want different RaW and RaI.

A Special Snowflake FAQ is an FAQ that acts as errata, ignoring how the RaW works. Examples include the whole Daemon Stratagem Faction Keyword Nonsense, the Blood Angels Red Grail (in the index anyway) not stacking with Blood Chalice and Index Tank Commanders being prevented from ordering themselves.

That is incorrect. the fact that they change rules through errata and FAQ's show that sometimes RAI is not always what they write in the book, or do you really believe that they wrote the rules for assault weapons knowing that You may not pick a unit that Advanced this turn...

Furthermore FAQ's that change rules have been around for years. That is not news, that is just an FAQ from GW.

I wish he’d drop that nonsense. Some FAQs and Errata are literal proof that RAW did not equal RAI. Some *are* a change to RAI, but not all, so *yet again* we have BCB trotting our a fallacy. So boring to see this “I’m always right” justification posted so often, when it’s simply wrong.

By that logic Split Fire is an "oversight", or Overcharged Plasma not allowing a save is an "oversight". What previous editions did has no bearing on what 8th does.

It's just a thing said to derail threads.
It clearly works.

 skchsan wrote:
Transports and units inside not counting towards 50% reserves rules at deployment has been like that prior to 8th ed.

The main driver for this is that a dedicated transport is no longer locked to the unit it came with and the fact you can transport multiple units to its capacity in 8th that's bringing up this issue.

If something worked in a certain way forever, then a minor rule change comes, breaking the game/that particular rule. It sure doesn't sound like a RAI but an oversight on rulewriting/rule interaction..

I'm sorry but just because it was that way in the past doesn't mean it works that way in the new(er) editions. I agree that the units loaded on the transport count as "on the board" for strategic reserves purposes.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The rule is simply badly worded. They’re trying to say “half not deployed in reserve” but muddied it with using “on the battlefield”, leading to the ludicrous claims by some that units in Transports die on turn 4, etc.

This is a great point. If we were to follow RAW from the Tactical Reserves entry on p215, then embarked troops must disembark by turn 3 or die. Just as I have never seen anyone insist on embarked troops counting to the reserves total, I have also never seen anyone insist on troops still embarked at the end of turn 3 count as destroyed. And so it would appear that the convention for both is pretty much established (RAW or not).

It also occurs to me that the writers might have been trying to ensure that there were enough troops that can be affected by an opponent on turn 1. While troops embarked are not on the table they could still be killed if their transport is destroyed. Clearly this is my venture in to speculation as I too cannot tell what the writers meant, but it seems to add another factor in favour of the "convention" adopted.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Transports and units inside not counting towards 50% reserves rules at deployment has been like that prior to 8th ed.

The main driver for this is that a dedicated transport is no longer locked to the unit it came with and the fact you can transport multiple units to its capacity in 8th that's bringing up this issue.

If something worked in a certain way forever, then a minor rule change comes, breaking the game/that particular rule. It sure doesn't sound like a RAI but an oversight on rulewriting/rule interaction..

I'm sorry but just because it was that way in the past doesn't mean it works that way in the new(er) editions. I agree that the units loaded on the transport count as "on the board" for strategic reserves purposes.

No one's telling you that you shouldn't play it the way HYWPI. This is a discussion regarding the RAW, and whether the rule is poorly written or not, and as per raw, units starting the games embarked do not count towards having units on board for reserves calculations.

As much as I agree that the common houserule counting embarked = on the battlefield works most of the time, ruling it exactly as RAW prevents the potential exploitation of the reserves rule and embarked units (i.e. valkyrie sqaudron of 3, each carrying 12 single model units resulting in 39 potential deepstrikers with 1 drop deployment). This is as close to null deployment you can get in 8th.

One of the main points 8th ed tried to address as per interviews with the designers was addressing the issue of null deployment - and I think ruling it RAW addresses that problem perfectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similarly, if you consider units embarked on a vehicle counting towards having units on the battlefield, it completely nullifies the point of the FAQ addressing flyers and sudden death.

The FAQ was meant to address the stormraven spam - following the above line of logic, the stormraven spam all of a sudden bypasses the sudden death restrictions by paying 55 pt scout tax for them to ride in it for the entirety of the game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that logic Split Fire is an "oversight", or Overcharged Plasma not allowing a save is an "oversight". What previous editions did has no bearing on what 8th does.

By that logic, this post is a “by that logic” fallacy.

Split fire is expressly permitted by the RAW, although “Split Fire” isn’t a RAW term (you’ve got some edition lag there). So not an oversight by any yardstick.

Plasma doesn’t “not allow a save”, it makes it so most saves aren’t possible as they require impossible results on the save roll. Other saves are possible, such as a Land Raider saving against Hellblasters. Plasma is also expressly intended to savage armour. So not an oversight by any yardstick.

Try arguing in good faith once in a while, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Transports and units inside not counting towards 50% reserves rules at deployment has been like that prior to 8th ed.

The main driver for this is that a dedicated transport is no longer locked to the unit it came with and the fact you can transport multiple units to its capacity in 8th that's bringing up this issue.

If something worked in a certain way forever, then a minor rule change comes, breaking the game/that particular rule. It sure doesn't sound like a RAI but an oversight on rulewriting/rule interaction..

I'm sorry but just because it was that way in the past doesn't mean it works that way in the new(er) editions. I agree that the units loaded on the transport count as "on the board" for strategic reserves purposes.

No one's telling you that you shouldn't play it the way HYWPI. This is a discussion regarding the RAW, and whether the rule is poorly written or not, and as per raw, units starting the games embarked do not count towards having units on board for reserves calculations.

As much as I agree that the common houserule counting embarked = on the battlefield works most of the time, ruling it exactly as RAW prevents the potential exploitation of the reserves rule and embarked units (i.e. valkyrie sqaudron of 3, each carrying 12 single model units resulting in 39 potential deepstrikers with 1 drop deployment). This is as close to null deployment you can get in 8th.

One of the main points 8th ed tried to address as per interviews with the designers was addressing the issue of null deployment - and I think ruling it RAW addresses that problem perfectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similarly, if you consider units embarked on a vehicle counting towards having units on the battlefield, it completely nullifies the point of the FAQ addressing flyers and sudden death.

The FAQ was meant to address the stormraven spam - following the above line of logic, the stormraven spam all of a sudden bypasses the sudden death restrictions by paying 55 pt scout tax for them to ride in it for the entirety of the game.

Has anyone actually even done that? It would be so points-inefficient as to be laughably uncompetitive, so wouldn’t ever appear. I think you can file the “39 units Valkyrie Squadronl as an ‘internet-only issue’.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that logic Split Fire is an "oversight", or Overcharged Plasma not allowing a save is an "oversight". What previous editions did has no bearing on what 8th does.

By that logic, this post is a “by that logic” fallacy.

Split fire is expressly permitted by the RAW, although “Split Fire” isn’t a RAW term (you’ve got some edition lag there). So not an oversight by any yardstick.

Plasma doesn’t “not allow a save”, it makes it so most saves aren’t possible as they require impossible results on the save roll. Other saves are possible, such as a Land Raider saving against Hellblasters. Plasma is also expressly intended to savage armour. So not an oversight by any yardstick.

Try arguing in good faith once in a while, eh?

I was talking about the mortal wounds caused when you roll a 1 to hit, and splitting fire as an action, not as a rule. As for arguing in good faith, perhaps take your own advice? Arguing RaW is arguing in good faith because THE RULES are what we are discussing.

For someone who is a "Ignore the rules" activist, you're a little hypocritical to be trying to nitpick other peoples posts.

Fenrisbrit wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The rule is simply badly worded. They’re trying to say “half not deployed in reserve” but muddied it with using “on the battlefield”, leading to the ludicrous claims by some that units in Transports die on turn 4, etc.

This is a great point. If we were to follow RAW from the Tactical Reserves entry on p215, then embarked troops must disembark by turn 3 or die. Just as I have never seen anyone insist on embarked troops counting to the reserves total, I have also never seen anyone insist on troops still embarked at the end of turn 3 count as destroyed. And so it would appear that the convention for both is pretty much established (RAW or not).

It also occurs to me that the writers might have been trying to ensure that there were enough troops that can be affected by an opponent on turn 1. While troops embarked are not on the table they could still be killed if their transport is destroyed. Clearly this is my venture in to speculation as I too cannot tell what the writers meant, but it seems to add another factor in favour of the "convention" adopted.

The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives. They were not trying to penalise you for using Transports to transport stuff. Units in Yansports don’t have the location flexibility a unit in reserve has. But it doesn’t stop people irrationally arguing that rising in a Chimera makes you die on Turn 4. Even writing it like that and demonstrating how laughable the concept is just makes them double down on “BUT RAW SAYS” and meh, let them be intractable. Again, it’s an internet only issue tbh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that logic Split Fire is an "oversight", or Overcharged Plasma not allowing a save is an "oversight". What previous editions did has no bearing on what 8th does.

By that logic, this post is a “by that logic” fallacy.

Split fire is expressly permitted by the RAW, although “Split Fire” isn’t a RAW term (you’ve got some edition lag there). So not an oversight by any yardstick.

Plasma doesn’t “not allow a save”, it makes it so most saves aren’t possible as they require impossible results on the save roll. Other saves are possible, such as a Land Raider saving against Hellblasters. Plasma is also expressly intended to savage armour. So not an oversight by any yardstick.

Try arguing in good faith once in a while, eh?

I was talking about the mortal wounds caused when you roll a 1 to hit, and splitting fire as an action, not as a rule. As for arguing in good faith, perhaps take your own advice? Arguing RaW is arguing in good faith because THE RULES are what we are discussing.

For someone who is a "Ignore the rules" activist, you're a little hypocritical to be trying to nitpick other peoples posts.

Thanks for the label, but it’s wildly erroneous, based on you disagreeing and needing to tar me in an attempt to discredit me. I follow the rules, and use common sense where they fall apart or generate ridiculous results. You prefer to ignore common sense is your prerogative. Hey, you do you.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives. They were not trying to penalise you for using Transports to transport stuff. Units in Yansports don’t have the location flexibility a unit in reserve has. But it doesn’t stop people irrationally arguing that rising in a Chimera makes you die on Turn 4. Even writing it like that and demonstrating how laughable the concept is just makes them double down on “BUT RAW SAYS” and meh, let them be intractable. Again, it’s an internet only issue tbh.

Just because you don't like the rule doesn't change it. You're free to make up whatever rules you want in your games, but the majority of us like playing by the rules. Would you accept if all my Space Marines Hit and Wound automatically and have AP-5 weapons because that is what I think the writers "intended"?

As the rules stand, units in transports don't count for 50% on the battlefield, and will die if they don't disembark by turn 3 if they started embarked. This thread was answered immediately and everything else is just people upset the rules don't work the way they want.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives.

You know this isn't true since the sudden death rule still existed. It was a problem because if you null deploy, you ALWAYS get an extra round over the opponent whether you go first or second.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives. They were not trying to penalise you for using Transports to transport stuff. Units in Yansports don’t have the location flexibility a unit in reserve has. But it doesn’t stop people irrationally arguing that rising in a Chimera makes you die on Turn 4. Even writing it like that and demonstrating how laughable the concept is just makes them double down on “BUT RAW SAYS” and meh, let them be intractable. Again, it’s an internet only issue tbh.

Just because you don't like the rule doesn't change it. You're free to make up whatever rules you want in your games, but the majority of us like playing by the rules. Would you accept if all my Space Marines Hit and Wound automatically and have AP-5 weapons because that is what I think the writers "intended"?

As the rules stand, units in transports don't count for 50% on the battlefield, and will die if they don't disembark by turn 3 if they started embarked.

Can you ever argue without chucking in a logical fallacy? That Space Marine one is just a variation on your tired T20 Conscripts fallacy.

Whatever your POV I’ve never seen one game or batrep where ANYONE has subscribed to your take on this. So you do you. We’re happy over here playing by the spirit rather than getting hamstrung on the letter of a rule that generates stupidly illogical results. OH SNAP are you arguing RAW vs HIWPI yet again? You could save us all a lot of wasted internet space by not doing that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The writers were trying to avoid null deployment, and prevent an entire army being saved to drop in on Turn 5 exactly where you want and claim objectives.

You know this isn't true since the sudden death rule still existed. It was a problem because if you null deploy, you ALWAYS get an extra round over the opponent whether you go first or second.

*sigh* it’s tirinv round here lately. Don’t be so absolutist. You *know* I mean small/minimal deployment. Yes I know the Sudden Death Rule exists.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
*sigh* it’s tirinv round here lately. Don’t be so absolutist. You *know* I mean small/minimal deployment. Yes I know the Sudden Death Rule exists.

You literally just nitpicked because I capitalised split fire. skchsan makes a valid point and I don't see any rebuttal.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Has anyone actually even done that? It would be so points-inefficient as to be laughably uncompetitive, so wouldn’t ever appear. I think you can file the “39 units Valkyrie Squadronl as an ‘internet-only issue’.

Competitive or not, it's the principle at play here. You're more than welcomed to play it as you see fit, but what's being discussed is the RAW here.

Matter of fact, our local gaming group player runs 3 valkyries with each carrying 3 to 6 units each (plasma CMS + characters) then puts his 6 scions in reserves. We rule against it and force him to start some of his units NOT embarked on the valkyrie to make it legal deployment.

Then you’re not playing by the RAW... you’re house ruling to take advantage from the Scion player. Transported units are not in Reserves. Show me where it say units in Transports are in Reserves. You can’t. Units embarked in a Transport share the location of their Transport.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Then you’re not playing by the RAW... you’re house ruling to take advantage from the Scion player. Transported units are not in Reserves. Show me where it say units in Transports are in Reserves. You can’t. Units embarked in a Transport share the location of their Transport.

Embarked units are not in reserve. They are simply "removed from battlefield", which would indicate they are "not on battlefield."

Tactical reserves rule does not care how many units are deployed. It only cares about how many units are "on the battlefield" during deployment RAW.

Yes, they share their locale with the transport. However, for all other purposes of rules, they are "not on battlefield" because [Embarking] subheading specifically tells you to "remove the models from the battlefield."

There are two sets of state-related keywords employed in the game: [deployed] and [in reserves], [off the battlefield] and [on the battlefield].

Units deploying the game embarked in a transport is of [deployed], [off the battlefield] status.
Tactical reserves rule requires at least 50% of your army, counted in number of units, to be of [deployed], [on the battlefield] status.

Nowhere does the rule state being embarked is [in reserve], [off the battlefield].

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Then you’re not playing by the RAW... you’re house ruling to take advantage from the Scion player. Transported units are not in Reserves. Show me where it say units in Transports are in Reserves. You can’t. Units embarked in a Transport share the location of their Transport.

Embarked units are not in reserve. They are simply "removed from battlefield", which would indicate they are "not on battlefield."

Tactical reserves rule does not care how many units are deployed. It only cares about how many units are "on the battlefield" during deployment RAW.

Yes, they share their locale with the transport. However, for all other purposes of rules, they are "not on battlefield" because [Embarking] subheading specifically tells you to "remove the models from the battlefield."

There are two sets of state-related keywords employed in the game: [deployed] and [in reserves], [off the battlefield] and [on the battlefield].

Units deploying the game embarked in a transport is of [deployed], [off the battlefield] status.
Tactical reserves rule requires at least 50% of your army, counted in number of units, to be of [deployed], [on the battlefield] status.

Nowhere does the rule state being embarked is [in reserve], [off the battlefield].

"[deployed], [off the battlefield] status", but embarked inside a transport and "setup in that locale"

Ergo they are in the same locale as the transport (on the battlefield but embarked) while being off the battlefield. So they should count as deployed for the purposes of tactical objectives.

Unless they are Schrodinger's passengers.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

Units with abilities on their datasheets
that allow them to be set up somewhere
other than the battlefield must still be ‘set
up’ in that locale, and so still count as a
deployment choice. When you choose to
set up a transport, declare what units (if
any) are embarked inside – these are not
separate deployment choices.

Deployed inside a transport is not on the battlefield.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Deployed inside a transport is not on the battlefield.

But it is embarked inside, and ‘set up’ in that locale and the Transport is on the battlefield.

Also Tactical Reserves are only talking about unis that are "set up in teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, Etc."

Units in transports are not in Reserve, so they do not have to worry about the Tactical Reserves restriction as Tactical Reserves is only talking about units that "Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment" As I have shown, units in transports are still set up in the same locale as the transport they are in during deployment and not in Reserve.

Therefore You count the units on the battlefield and any transported units if the transport they are riding in is on the battlefield, since the embarked units are "set up in that locale"

Plus you only remove the unit from the battlefield when you embark on a transport. When you start the game embarked, you do not remove the unit from the battlefield.

Bottom like is that embarked units count for how many you have on the battlefield.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Deployed inside a transport is not on the battlefield.

But it is embarked inside, and ‘set up’ in that locale and the Transport is on the battlefield.

Also Tactical Reserves are only talking about unis that are "set up in teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, Etc."

Units in transports are not in Reserve, so they do not have to worry about the Tactical Reserves restriction as Tactical Reserves is only talking about units that "Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment" As I have shown, units in transports are still set up in the same locale as the transport they are in during deployment and not in Reserve.

Therefore You count the units on the battlefield and any transported units if the transport they are riding in is on the battlefield, since the embarked units are "set up in that locale"

Plus you only remove the unit from the battlefield when you embark on a transport. When you start the game embarked, you do not remove the unit from the battlefield.

Bottom like is that embarked units count for how many you have on the battlefield.

The "etc" includes inside a transport. "Inside a transport" is not "On the Battlefield", any more than "In Budapest" is the same as "In Prague". The rules for embarking LITERALLY tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield. it can't get any clearer than that.

That is the bottom line, and the beauty of actually following the rules as written.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The "etc" includes inside a transport. "Inside a transport" is not "On the Battlefield", any more than "In Budapest" is the same as "In Prague".

No it does not include inside a transport, as they are "set up in that locale" (being embarked in the transport). They are not set up in Reserves, and they have no ability, on their datasheet, that states "instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment..." Ergo they must start on the battlefield. The transport rules allows them to start embarked. The designers commentary FAQ still states they "are embarked inside" (the transport) and the units that are starting embarked "are not separate deployment choices."

This has nothing to do with the tactical Reserves rules though since the unit in the transport does not have the ability to be set up anywhere but the battlefield during deployment.

The rules for embarking LITERALLY tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield. it can't get any clearer than that.

Good thing we don't use the embarking rules at the start of the game. The unit does not embark on the transport at the start of the game. They start embarked already.

That is the bottom line, and the beauty of actually following the rules as written.

I have, you have not followed RAW if you do not count the units that start embarked.

Can you explain then what exactly "instead of being set up on the battlefield" means to you?

So if the units embarked are already "set up on the battlefield" within the said transport, how do they disembark? Disembark rule specifically states you "set it up on the battlefield." How does a unit that's already been set up on the battlefield be set up on the battlefield again? Note, any other consequential movement rules/abilities tell you to simply "set it up so that..." It specifically does not include the term "on the battlefield." However, we see a specific and explicit inclusion of the term "on the battlefield" in the explaination of the action of a unit when it disembarks from a vehicle. Surely, if you are told to put something "here," it must have not been "here" in the first place; otherwise, there would be no point of telling you to put it "here" since it was already "here."

Thus, if you are told to "set it up on the battlefield," it must have not been "set up on the battlefield," but somewhere else that is specifically not "on the battlefield." Therefore, if a unit is embarked on a transport, it is not on the battlefield.

 skchsan wrote:
Can you explain then what exactly "instead of being set up on the battlefield" means to you?

It means the Datasheet for the unit has an ability that allows it to be in Reserves "instead of being set up on the battlefield"

Space Marine Scouts do not have any ability on their Datasheet that allow them to be set up anywhere "instead of being set up on the battlefield"

Same goes for Ork boys, and a ton of different units.

On the other hand, units with Jump Packs, and Terminator armour etc., do have an ability on their Datasheet that allows them to deploy elsewhere "instead of being set up on the battlefield"

And to your edit:

It does not matter if they are not on the battlefield, They are Embarked at the start of the game. The unit does not embark on the transport at the start of the game. They start embarked already.

40k BRB wrote:When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up.

So instead of deploying outside the transport, they are embarked within the transport.

40k Designers commentary wrote:When you choose to set up a transport, declare what units (if any) are embarked inside – these are not separate deployment choices.

The unit inside a transport are embarked inside. They are not separate deployment choices. They both deploy at the same time. at the location you deploy the transport.

They are not set up in Reserves. and since the transport is on the battlefield, and a unit inside a transport is embarked in the transport, they must be in the same location.

You first need to understand that "off the battlefield" =/= "in reserve". It may get confusing because being "deployed" may sound synonimous to being set up "on the battlefield. However, these are two independent sets of operative syntax the game utilizes, although they are closely intertwined. It is important that you understand these are not "if, then must" situations in all cases.

Barring rare exceptions:
If [in reserves], it must be [off battlefield]
If [deployed], it can be either [on battlefield] or [off battlefield]
If [off battlefield], it can be either [deployed] or [in reserves]
If [on battlefield], it must be [deployed]

Being off the battlefield doesn't always have to do with being in reserve. The term "locale" is merely a mental construct that tells you where, which otherwise is, the "not on battlefield" the units are temporarily located at since, lets face it, it would be ridiculous to place the units in "high orbit", 100' above the gameboard to represent it, or design a "teleportarium" that you have to have placed outside of the gameboard to represent that units inside it will be entering via teleportation.

 Elbows wrote:
And you're arguing nonsense...so what's the point?

You can feel free to penalize yourself with the continually hilarious rules interpretations...but no one else will. Enjoy your games.

He's arguing RAW. You can think it's nonsense if you want, but it's still RAW.

It just so happens most people aren't playing it by RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:

Let's note that the rules from transports do not actually say that they do not count as being on the battlefield; rather only specifies that their abilities do not work while they are embarked unless otherwise stated.

Well, only if you ignore the section in embarking "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." That seems a very good indication that the unit does not count as being on the battlefield.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Deployed inside a transport is not on the battlefield.

But it is embarked inside, and ‘set up’ in that locale and the Transport is on the battlefield.

Also Tactical Reserves are only talking about unis that are "set up in teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, Etc."

Units in transports are not in Reserve, so they do not have to worry about the Tactical Reserves restriction as Tactical Reserves is only talking about units that "Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment" As I have shown, units in transports are still set up in the same locale as the transport they are in during deployment and not in Reserve.

Therefore You count the units on the battlefield and any transported units if the transport they are riding in is on the battlefield, since the embarked units are "set up in that locale"

Plus you only remove the unit from the battlefield when you embark on a transport. When you start the game embarked, you do not remove the unit from the battlefield.

Bottom like is that embarked units count for how many you have on the battlefield.

The "etc" includes inside a transport. "Inside a transport" is not "On the Battlefield", any more than "In Budapest" is the same as "In Prague". The rules for embarking LITERALLY tell you to remove the unit from the battlefield. it can't get any clearer than that.

That is the bottom line, and the beauty of actually following the rules as written.

The beauty is what... bizarre unintended occurrences where Chimeras eat Guardsmen? Yeah sure, “beauty”. I think you’re also ignoring other RAW elements like the FAQ and only choosing to read the RAW you think supports your view. But what’s new?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
And you're arguing nonsense...so what's the point?

You can feel free to penalize yourself with the continually hilarious rules interpretations...but no one else will. Enjoy your games.

He's arguing RAW. You can think it's nonsense if you want, but it's still RAW.

It just so happens most people aren't playing it by RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:

Let's note that the rules from transports do not actually say that they do not count as being on the battlefield; rather only specifies that their abilities do not work while they are embarked unless otherwise stated.

Well, only if you ignore the section in embarking "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side." That seems a very good indication that the unit does not count as being on the battlefield.

That simply means “don’t balance all your dudes on the tank - pop them to one side and remember they’re inside”. It’s not the same as Teleportarium/webway/etc. deployment.