Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok so this was interesting and came up in a game. If an ork player embarks a squad of gretchin into a stompa does the stompa then become obsec?

The Stompa does not gain Objective Secured from having a unit with Objective Secured embarked upon it.

So embarked passengers arent contesting or holding objectives its the vehicle/transport they are in always?

Correct.

 dameanone wrote:
So embarked passengers arent contesting or holding objectives its the vehicle/transport they are in always?

It depends on whether the Draft FAQ is in effect or not.

Q: I have a question regarding unit special rules that affect all or some units within a certain range of a model or unit. How do these interact with units inside Transports, and what happens if the unit with the rule is inside a Transport?
A: When a unit embarks on a vehicle it is taken off the battlefield and does not interact with anything on the battlefield. However, certain rules may create exceptions to this rule, with the most obvious examples being Fire Points and psychic powers and Transports. If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.

So, the Draft FAQ says that a special rule must specifically state that it applies when embarked on a Transport.



If not for the Draft FAQ then this rule would allow for an embarked unit to hold objectives with objective secured.

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.

col_impact wrote:
If not for the Draft FAQ then this rule would allow for an embarked unit to hold objectives with objective secured.

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.

Certainly it was seemingly fairly universally played that way prior to the draft FAQ, but I'd argue in light of the draft FAQ it simply tells you when you need to how to do so, rather than effectively saying we should always consider the unit's place on the board as being the vehicle's hull.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If not for the Draft FAQ then this rule would allow for an embarked unit to hold objectives with objective secured.

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.

Certainly it was seemingly fairly universally played that way prior to the draft FAQ, but I'd argue in light of the draft FAQ it simply tells you when you need to how to do so, rather than effectively saying we should always consider the unit's place on the board as being the vehicle's hull.

Objective Secured involves measuring a range.

Pre Draft FAQ = You measured that range from the vehicle's hull. So the gretchins on board a Stompa had a huge footprint for measuring the range.

Post Draft FAQ = Objective Secured doesn't give you specific permission to measure that range while embarked on a Transport so you can't do it.

Do gretchins have a dedicated transport? That one would get Obj Sec as well, IIRC.

 Vector Strike wrote:
Do gretchins have a dedicated transport? That one would get Obj Sec as well, IIRC.

Dedicated Transports for units that have Objective Secured is a different story since Dedicated Transports inherit the battlefield role of the unit in question.

 Vector Strike wrote:
Do gretchins have a dedicated transport? That one would get Obj Sec as well, IIRC.

No, they don't. At least until they decide they want to put out Gorkamorka again and decide to do a Rebel Grot list in conjunction with that.

col_impact wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If not for the Draft FAQ then this rule would allow for an embarked unit to hold objectives with objective secured.

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.

Certainly it was seemingly fairly universally played that way prior to the draft FAQ, but I'd argue in light of the draft FAQ it simply tells you when you need to how to do so, rather than effectively saying we should always consider the unit's place on the board as being the vehicle's hull.

Objective Secured involves measuring a range.

Pre Draft FAQ = You measured that range from the vehicle's hull. So the gretchins on board a Stompa had a huge footprint for measuring the range.

Post Draft FAQ = Objective Secured doesn't give you specific permission to measure that range while embarked on a Transport so you can't do it.

It's not something I ever stopped to consider prior to the draft FAQ, but I'd suggest your post-draft FAQ is just as true pre-draft FAQ - we all simply assumed a permission to consider the unit there in the transport and affectable and measureable-to for such purposes.

 Mr. Shine wrote:


It's not something I ever stopped to consider prior to the draft FAQ, but I'd suggest your post-draft FAQ is just as true pre-draft FAQ - we all simply assumed a permission to consider the unit there in the transport and affectable and measureable-to for such purposes.

I disagree. Following the RAW means making no assumptions or adding any restrictions that are not there in the rules. There was blanket permission to make measurements for Special Rules from the hull for embarked units so it was entirely correct RAW to apply this permission to Objective Secured.

The Draft FAQ changed how Special Rules work with regards to embarked units by adding a restriction - that a Special Rule must specifically address embarked units. If the Official FAQ comes out later with that item deleted we go back to the way things were before.

col_impact wrote:
I disagree. Following the RAW means making no assumptions or adding any restrictions that are not there in the rules. There was blanket permission to make measurements for Special Rules from the hull for embarked units so it was entirely correct RAW to apply this permission to Objective Secured.

I'm not sure I agree it's blanket permission, rather it is telling you how to do so if you need to.

Neither 'Objective Secured' nor 'Controlling Objective Markers' explicitly create a need to measure to the embarked unit; rather there is an assumption the embarked unit counts as "there", being within the space of the vehicle's hull.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I disagree. Following the RAW means making no assumptions or adding any restrictions that are not there in the rules. There was blanket permission to make measurements for Special Rules from the hull for embarked units so it was entirely correct RAW to apply this permission to Objective Secured.

I'm not sure I agree it's blanket permission, rather it is telling you how to do so if you need to.

Neither 'Objective Secured' nor 'Controlling Objective Markers' explicitly create a need to measure to the embarked unit; rather there is an assumption the embarked unit counts as "there", being within the space of the vehicle's hull.

I'd disagree with that statement. If you're trying to figure out who controls an objective for purposes of knowing who wins, then there's a need to know where the unit is in relation to the objective. The permission that had been given covered that. This looks more like a change on the line of not allowing Battle Brothers in a faction's transports at the beginning of the game.

 doctortom wrote:
I'd disagree with that statement. If you're trying to figure out who controls an objective for purposes of knowing who wins, then there's a need to know where the unit is in relation to the objective.

I agree there's need to know where units are to determine whether in range of controlling an objective marker, but the assumption being made is that we can consider the embarked unit as being there while embarked.

We're told to remove a unit from the table and note it is being transported, but there's a lack of anything to say, "Embarked units are airways considered to occupy their transport for the purposes of determining any effects, rules or otherwise."

The permission that had been given covered that. This looks more like a change on the line of not allowing Battle Brothers in a faction's transports at the beginning of the game.

As I recall there's some argument that was also never allowed, something like the difference of permission for Battle Brothers to embark on each other's transports, but that not being the same as (and therefore not being allowed to) deploying/beginning the game embarked upon each other's transports. I may be incorrect but I think perhaps coincidentally that is and was col_impact's view.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
I'd disagree with that statement. If you're trying to figure out who controls an objective for purposes of knowing who wins, then there's a need to know where the unit is in relation to the objective.

I agree there's need to know where units are to determine whether in range of controlling an objective marker, but the assumption being made is that we can consider the embarked unit as being there while embarked.

We're told to remove a unit from the table and note it is being transported, but there's a lack of anything to say, "Embarked units are airways considered to occupy their transport for the purposes of determining any effects, rules or otherwise."

"Embarked upon" means to board a vehicle so common sense/dictionary meaning would infer that the units are considered inside their transport and the general permission to measure from the hull of the vehicle grounds that inference with rules.

The alternative of measuring from the side of the table outside the battlefield leads to absurd lines of play. We can safely surmise that there will never be a case of measuring to the side of the battlefied for an embarked unit in a vehicle on the battlefield. A unit that is removed from the table is not in play and exists nowhere in reference to the battlefield.

It's important to simply just throw out absurd lines of reasoning even if a hyper-critical RAW reading of the rules would seem to support them. The method of argument known as "reductio ad absurdum" is very important in rules discussion, in my opinion. We don't want units in reserve shooting at units on the battlefield or units being deployed out of coherency. Both of those are technically allowed via a hyper-critical reading of the rules but discarded cuz silly/absurd.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I agree there's need to know where units are to determine whether in range of controlling an objective marker, but the assumption being made is that we can consider the embarked unit as being there while embarked.

We're told to remove a unit from the table and note it is being transported, but there's a lack of anything to say, "Embarked units are airways considered to occupy their transport for the purposes of determining any effects, rules or otherwise."

So, this:

If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.

is not to be taken in consideration?

 Mr. Shine wrote:
As I recall there's some argument that was also never allowed, something like the difference of permission for Battle Brothers to embark on each other's transports, but that not being the same as (and therefore not being allowed to) deploying/beginning the game embarked upon each other's transports. I may be incorrect but I think perhaps coincidentally that is and was col_impact's view.

Not exactly the best endorsement.

Battle Brothers are to treat each other as "'friendly units' for all rules purposes." The definition of "friendly unit" is "All models on the same side" which Battle Brothers embraces and does not counter like the other Ally definitions.

So, by saying that Battle Brothers cannot start the game Embarked is also saying that only units with a Dedicated Transport can start the game Embarked, and no one else.

Except during Deployment we are specifically granted permission to place units inside a Transport, and it does not care if the Transport is not Dedicated. And in order for a unit to have any benefit or use of being "inside" a Transport, it must class as "Embarked" so it can get out later without using an Explodes result.

So, yeah, Draft FAQ is nonsensical in many places and does not take in to consideration the actual written rules nor does it actively change them.

col_impact wrote:
"Embarked upon" means to board a vehicle so common sense/dictionary meaning would infer that the units are considered inside their transport and the general permission to measure from the hull of the vehicle grounds that inference with rules.

The alternative of measuring from the side of the table outside the battlefield leads to absurd lines of play. We can safely surmise that there will never be a case of measuring to the side of the battlefied for an embarked unit in a vehicle on the battlefield. A unit that is removed from the table is not in play and exists nowhere in reference to the battlefield.

It's important to simply just throw out absurd lines of reasoning even if a hyper-critical RAW reading of the rules would seem to support them. The method of argument known as "reductio ad absurdum" is very important in rules discussion, in my opinion. We don't want units in reserve shooting at units on the battlefield or units being deployed out of coherency. Both of those are technically allowed via a hyper-critical reading of the rules but discarded cuz silly/absurd.

I'm not advocating an absurd line of reasoning at all. I'd argue it's common sense that a unit particularly capable of holding objectives would not necessarily be so capable when embarked on a transport not itself similarly capable (i.e. also Objective Secured) unless specified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
So, this:

If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.

is not to be taken in consideration?

I've not said that. That's perfectly relevant in telling you how to measure to the embarked unit if (the rules tell you that) you need to do so.

Not exactly the best endorsement.

Battle Brothers are to treat each other as "'friendly units' for all rules purposes." The definition of "friendly unit" is "All models on the same side" which Battle Brothers embraces and does not counter like the other Ally definitions.

So, by saying that Battle Brothers cannot start the game Embarked is also saying that only units with a Dedicated Transport can start the game Embarked, and no one else.

Except during Deployment we are specifically granted permission to place units inside a Transport, and it does not care if the Transport is not Dedicated. And in order for a unit to have any benefit or use of being "inside" a Transport, it must class as "Embarked" so it can get out later without using an Explodes result.

So, yeah, Draft FAQ is nonsensical in many places and does not take in to consideration the actual written rules nor does it actively change them.

That wasn't really meant to support my argument, simply point out a similar debate existed. I simply thought it interesting doctortom drew the comparison to a matter col_impact disagrees with his view of as similar to this, on which they are agreed.

(Assuming my recollection is correct - again, apologies if not the case and I'm mistaken.)

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
So, this:

If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.

is not to be taken in consideration?

I've not said that. That's perfectly relevant in telling you how to measure to the embarked unit if (the rules tell you that) you need to do so.

It is implied.

So because Controlling an Objective is only about the model being near it, and the Embarked Rules only address the units and the Embarked rules only address units, we can just drop the whole idea?

 Mr. Shine wrote:
That wasn't really meant to support my argument, simply point out a similar debate existed.

A pointless debate that ignores facts isn't really a debate.

 Charistoph wrote:
It is implied.

On the assumption that a unit's "area of effect" special rules etc. function while said unit is embarked on a vehicle, perhaps.

A pointless debate that ignores facts isn't really a debate.

I don't think there's any real need to bring your personal cold war with col_impact into this. It's certainly not any debate or otherwise I've waded into.

Uh-oh, it looks like Charistoph, col_impact and I all agreed on something. It's the Apocalypse!!

 doctortom wrote:
Uh-oh, it looks like Charistoph, col_impact and I all agreed on something. It's the Apocalypse!!

That combined with the Cubs winning the world series, and the Lions being in first place...

 Happyjew wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Uh-oh, it looks like Charistoph, col_impact and I all agreed on something. It's the Apocalypse!!

That combined with the Cubs winning the world series, and the Lions being in first place...

And lists for Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch being put out again, and Blood Bowl being rereleased. The Final Sign of the Apocalypse will be the return of the Squats.