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.

As the statement in the title says are they on the table?

In the example I can give the AM Warlord Trait Grand Strategist says specifically that to do one of its affects your Warlord has to be on table. So not in deep strike etc. But one of the people in our group stated that when entering a transport the model is "removed from the table" and therefore for rules purposes is no longer "on the table".

Another example would be an army where all the units are embarked in Flyers, you have troop units in the Flyers but they are not placed on the table, so in this example at the end of the turn do you loose the game? Eg. the rest of your army was destroyed but the 3 Stormravens filled to capacity you have do not count.

Just wondered what every one thinks?

'Transports' page 183 of the main rulebook, fifth paragraph.

The rules for transport are (for once) explicitly clear on this. They are not on the table.

Another example would be an army where all the units are embarked in Flyers, you have troop units in the Flyers but they are not placed on the table, so in this example at the end of the turn do you loose the game? Eg. the rest of your army was destroyed but the 3 Stormravens filled to capacity you have do not count.

Correct, you'll lose the game. This is intentional.

This was posted earlier on a different thread but never extensively discussed.

Do units inside transport count towards deployed unit number for the purpose of determining tactical reserve 50% limit?

 skchsan wrote:
This was posted earlier on a different thread but never extensively discussed.

Do units inside transport count towards deployed unit number for the purpose of determining tactical reserve 50% limit?

They do not.

"When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere."

Being deployed inside a transport is being "set up elsewhere." As per the transport rules "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport." A unit that is embarked is unambiguously and explicitly not on the battlefield.

In fact, RaW if you fail to disembark at some point during the first 3 turns, the unit is destroyed.

 skchsan wrote:
This was posted earlier on a different thread but never extensively discussed.

Do units inside transport count towards deployed unit number for the purpose of determining tactical reserve 50% limit?

RaW, it's unclear, as embarking a unit requires you to "remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side" but then immediately after that they are "embarked inside the transport". On the one hand, there is the argument that BCB is making, that the unit is "off the battlefield" for rules purposes, since you're told to remove the unit from the battlefield. On the other hand, there is the argument that as the unit is "embarked inside the transport," which is itself on the battlefield, the unit is likewise on the battlefield, and that the phrase "remove from the battlefield" is GW failing to distinguish between a model having no physical presence on the table and no having no rules presence on the table.

RAI, it seems pretty clear that embarked models were intended to be included in the 50% that need to be deployed. It's supported both by the fact that the "tactical reserves" rule specifically highlight units that are set up off the table in order to arrive as reinforcements, citing numerous examples of such rules but not mentioning embarked units, as well as by the fact that not including them could create some very odd situations that would make no sense in a tactical game. For example, if you took a vehicle for every unit in your army, as well as one for 5 characters you wanted together, embarking all of those characters in a vehicle would mean that entire other units were required to begin play disembarked in order to fulfill the 50% rule. It is also hard to believe that Games Workshop's intention was to make it so that, for example, a unit of Kabs who decided to stay in and fire safely from their open-topped Raider rather than get on the ground and expose themselves to direct fire, would be instantly destroyed.

tl:dr RaW who knows, this actually is a case of GW writing rules poorly. RAI, obviously they count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules for transport are (for once) explicitly clear on this. They are not on the table.

Another example would be an army where all the units are embarked in Flyers, you have troop units in the Flyers but they are not placed on the table, so in this example at the end of the turn do you loose the game? Eg. the rest of your army was destroyed but the 3 Stormravens filled to capacity you have do not count.

Correct, you'll lose the game. This is intentional.

Do you have anything to back up the claim that this is intentional?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
This was posted earlier on a different thread but never extensively discussed.

Do units inside transport count towards deployed unit number for the purpose of determining tactical reserve 50% limit?

They do not.

"When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere."

Being deployed inside a transport is being "set up elsewhere." As per the transport rules "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport." A unit that is embarked is unambiguously and explicitly not on the battlefield.

In fact, RaW if you fail to disembark at some point during the first 3 turns, the unit is destroyed.

Nonsense. You can't pick half of the Tactical Reserves rule and apply it to units in a Transport. I suppose you'd better add this one to your sig if it isn't already there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
HIWPI and how I know others do:

Units deployed in Transports count as on the table for the purposes of Deployment, and of *not* being Tactical Reserves. Tactical Reserves are flexible deployments that come in later, and the 'Turn 3' rule is to prevent you keeping your army in reserve then grabbing all objectives on Turn 5. Transported units don't have that flexibility - they can only deploy from the vehicle they're in - so don't have the same penalty if they don't deploy. However, if a unit is in a Flyer, I wouldn't count it as on the ground for the purposes of Boots On The Ground.

Before someone like BCB piles on crying RAW! RAW! this is HIWPI and how others do to sensibly reconcile various inconsistencies or unknowns that occur if you don't.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Do you have anything to back up the claim that this is intentional?

By default it is intentional, because no errata has been made to change it.

Furthermore, the rules for determining if you are "tabled" call out embarked units within fortifications, thus suggesting that they needed to be explicitly called out because by default they would not count.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
RAI, obviously they count.

I could just as easily say RaI my Conscripts have 30 wounds and come in 560 model units. RaI is simply not helpful when it comes to discussing the rules or playing the game. RaI the Mordian doctrine was supposed to affect Overwatch hit chance. It didn't, which is why they issued errata to the RaW. If RaI mattered then GW would never issue errata.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Do you have anything to back up the claim that this is intentional?

By default it is intentional, because no errata has been made to change it.

Furthermore, the rules for determining if you are "tabled" call out embarked units within fortifications, thus suggesting that they needed to be explicitly called out because by default they would not count.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
RAI, obviously they count.

I could just as easily say RaI my Conscripts have 30 wounds and come in 560 model units. RaI is simply not helpful when it comes to discussing the rules or playing the game. RaI the Mordian doctrine was supposed to affect Overwatch hit chance. It didn't, which is why they issued errata to the RaW. If RaI mattered then GW would never issue errata.

Any time you wanna stop using that Conscripts strawman would be fine... RAI is just fine to discuss. You have indeed done so yourself in two recent threads, need I remind you.

 skchsan wrote:
This was posted earlier on a different thread but never extensively discussed.

Do units inside transport count towards deployed unit number for the purpose of determining tactical reserve 50% limit?

No, units inside a transport count as a single deployment together with the transport. It's as if no one bothers to read the FAQs anymore.

What about units that begin the battle embarked within
a transport?
A: 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.

Transports and their embarked units specifically do not act the same as units set up elsewhere from the battlefield.

The 50% limit isn't to do with drops tho. It's a totally different restriction

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The 50% limit isn't to do with drops tho. It's a totally different restriction

That's false meandering. Tactical Reserves pertains to Deployment, references it as such and states it applies "When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game" and demands that "at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere". The FAQ is clear that units embarked on transports are not a separate deployment choice, citing that units set up elsewhere still are a deployment choice. What is a deployment choice? A model? A battalion? A detachment? The deployment rules are on each mission and the only choice given is selecting units from your army. The FAQ has established that deployment choices for transports are not separate from the embarked unit. The only thing that constitutes a deployment choice is a unit, the same sort limiting Tactical Reserves in the first place, the same sort that the FAQ grants exception to for embarked units on transports. Tactical Reserves requires half your units be deployed even if they are set up elsewhere yet the FAQ removes transported units from counting as set up elsewhere for the purpose of deployment, which is the entire thing Tactical Reserves resolves around and applies to. It is established here by GW that they count as a single unit for the purpose of deployment, all purposes of deployment including the requirements of Tactical Reserves. This limit does indeed have to do with drops when the rules establish that half the army's units during Deployment must be set up on the battlefield while simultaneously showing that during Deployment both transport and embarked unit do not count as separate deployment choices, which as has been established are units. The rules cannot demand the embarked unit count towards either of the two states, on the board or elsewhere, when it treats the two units as a single entity. If you do so, you are violating the rules by treating the embarked unit as anything other than a single deployment choice, i.e. unit.

Whether you set them up on the ground or in deep strike, you treat both the transport unit and the embarked unit as a single unit during deployment, which is the only time Tactical Reserves applies.

BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Do you have anything to back up the claim that this is intentional?

By default it is intentional, because no errata has been made to change it.

That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works.

Failure to correct or clarify a mistake doesn't make if intentional "by default". So again, do you have anything to actually back up the claim that it was "intentional," or are you just assuming?

BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
RAI, obviously they count.

I could just as easily say RaI my Conscripts have 30 wounds and come in 560 model units. RaI is simply not helpful when it comes to discussing the rules or playing the game. RaI the Mordian doctrine was supposed to affect Overwatch hit chance. It didn't, which is why they issued errata to the RaW. If RaI mattered then GW would never issue errata.

Besides the fact that, as JohnnyHell points out, you yourself have frequently used RaI in instances where it suits you, there is a massive difference between saying something like "looking at the way this rule interacts with other rules, it is fairly clear that the intention was for it to work this way" and "based on zero evidence, I'm going to claim this nonsensical thing is RaI, so I can continue to claim that RaI is mysterious, unknowable, and useless, so I can maintain my list of how GW is so bad at writing all these rules that nobody else has an issue with"

Arkaine wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The 50% limit isn't to do with drops tho. It's a totally different restriction

That's false meandering. Tactical Reserves pertains to Deployment, references it as such and states it applies "When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game" and demands that "at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere". The FAQ is clear that units embarked on transports are not a separate deployment choice, citing that units set up elsewhere still are a deployment choice. What is a deployment choice? A model? A battalion? A detachment? The deployment rules are on each mission and the only choice given is selecting units from your army. The FAQ has established that deployment choices for transports are not separate from the embarked unit. The only thing that constitutes a deployment choice is a unit, the same sort limiting Tactical Reserves in the first place, the same sort that the FAQ grants exception to for embarked units on transports. Tactical Reserves requires half your units be deployed even if they are set up elsewhere yet the FAQ removes transported units from counting as set up elsewhere for the purpose of deployment, which is the entire thing Tactical Reserves resolves around and applies to. It is established here by GW that they count as a single unit for the purpose of deployment, all purposes of deployment including the requirements of Tactical Reserves. This limit does indeed have to do with drops when the rules establish that half the army's units during Deployment must be set up on the battlefield while simultaneously showing that during Deployment both transport and embarked unit do not count as separate deployment choices, which as has been established are units. The rules cannot demand the embarked unit count towards either of the two states, on the board or elsewhere, when it treats the two units as a single entity. If you do so, you are violating the rules by treating the embarked unit as anything other than a single deployment choice, i.e. unit.

Whether you set them up on the ground or in deep strike, you treat both the transport unit and the embarked unit as a single unit during deployment, which is the only time Tactical Reserves applies.

I had actually always dismissed the "single drop" rule as being relevant to this argument too, but it seems I was mistaken in that. That's solid. I've gotta go find the bottle of champ I put aside for the day I completely agreed with Arkaine's reasoning on something.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Besides the fact that, as JohnnyHell points out, you yourself have frequently used RaI in instances where it suits you, there is a massive difference between saying something like "looking at the way this rule interacts with other rules, it is fairly clear that the intention was for it to work this way" and "based on zero evidence, I'm going to claim this nonsensical thing is RaI, so I can continue to claim that RaI is mysterious, unknowable, and useless, so I can maintain my list of how GW is so bad at writing all these rules that nobody else has an issue with

I have JohnnyHell Blocked so I don't see his messages. I do not use RaI when it suits me, I use RaI as a tool to show how the rule plays out differently to RaW, but in the end RaW wins. The simple and unassailable fact is if one "RaI" argument is ok, then all RaI arguments are ok, including my swole conscripts. Is it stupid Assault weapons can't be fired after advancing? Yes. Would I force my opponent to play that way? Not unless he was a jackass about it. Does that change what the rules as written say? Absolutely not.

Please, define how we are going to determine a "mistake" from "intent" when they don't change the rules to fix a mistake?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
the simple and unassailable fact is if one "RaI" argument is ok, then all RaI arguments are ok, including my swole conscripts.

Man, I can't even list all the fallacies in that statement. Compositional, false equivalence, appeal to consequence...

Saying that RaI, units in transports count as being on the table and your "swole conscripts" argument aren't even close to equivalent. One has been pulled from the depths of your middle back pocket with zero evidence to support it, in order to support a compositionally false argument that "hey, since this nonsense isn't a good argument, no RaI argument is", the other is actually supported by, y'know, an argument, by evidence, by other rules that interplay with it.

Please, define how we are going to determine a "mistake" from "intent" when they don't change the rules to fix a mistake?

Never said you could determine it. You did. I pointed out that the fact that the designers did not correct something isn't proof that it was intentional, when you asserted that it was. There is an equally likely chance that it is a mistake that they have yet to correct. So, again, do you have any evidence to support your claim that "that is intentional". Because you are the one actually making a claim here.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
So, again, do you have any evidence to support your claim that "that is intentional". Because you are the one actually making a claim here.

The same evidence you have that giving Space Marines BS3+ was intentional.

It's not false equivalence to say "I think X is also unintentional" when you claim "Y is unintentional".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
So, again, do you have any evidence to support your claim that "that is intentional". Because you are the one actually making a claim here.

The same evidence you have that giving Space Marines BS3+ was intentional.

Which would be a great argument if those two situations were at all comparable. Unfortunately, they aren't. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in Space Marines have BS 3+. There is no need to question what the designer's intent was, because the RaW functions without question. There is no ambiguity, no reason to question whether conscripts were intended to have 30 wounds and 560 man blobs.

In the case of models in transports and how they interact with Sudden Death, Tactical Reserves, and Boots on the Ground, there is ambiguity, and so you do have to question the intent. And in this case, most of the evidence in the various overlapping rules indicates that models in transports are "on the battlefield" for the purposes of these rules, and that there is a distinction between "not on the battlefield" as in deployed in a separate, special, off the battlefield area, a la high orbit or a teleportarium, and "removed from the battlefield and set aside" as in the model is not physically on the table to represent them being inside a transport. Several people have presented their evidence as to why this seems to be the intent. I would ask you yet again, to present your evidence for believing the intention was otherwise, but it's clear at this point you don't actually have any.

It's not false equivalence to say "I think X is also unintentional" when you claim "Y is unintentional".

It is when they aren't equivalent statements. "I think W is intentional because X evidence" and "I think Y is intentional because Z evidence" are equivalent statements. They have equal worth as arguments. "I think W is intentional because X evidence" and "Well, then, I think Y is intentional because I can't conceive of the possibility of being wrong, so if you get to make a claim with evidence, I get to do whatever I want!!!!" are not equivalent statements, one is an argument, on is a strawman,

And, of course, that still doesn't address your composition fallacy, the simple fact that it does not actually follow that if one RaI argument is valid, they all are, or if one is invalid, they all are.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Which would be a great argument if those two situations were at all comparable. Unfortunately, they aren't.

In your opinion. In my opinion they are.

You know what doesn't depend on peoples opinions? The RaW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Which would be a great argument if those two situations were at all comparable. Unfortunately, they aren't.

In your opinion. In my opinion they are.

You know what doesn't depend on peoples opinions? The RaW.

Except when people read it different ways or it's unclear... which is most of the reason this forum exists.

This question is partially open for interpretation, especially when FAQ states that flyer embarked units do not count on being on battlefield. It is not clearly stated whether embarked units are on table or not, rules imply they are not on table.

Easiest way to handle this, which also makes common sense is to assume all the embarked units inherit the status of the transport.

So units embarked on transport flyer, which is on table, inherit the status flyer from the transport. This is for the purposes of losing game for having only flyers. Transports in reserves with embarked units inherit the reserves status. Transport on table with embarked units inherit the on table status for deployment purposes.

Ghorgul wrote:
This question is partially open for interpretation, especially when FAQ states that flyer embarked units do not count on being on battlefield. It is not clearly stated whether embarked units are on table or not, rules imply they are not on table.

Easiest way to handle this, which also makes common sense is to assume all the embarked units inherit the status of the transport.

So units embarked on transport flyer, which is on table, inherit the status flyer from the transport. This is for the purposes of losing game for having only flyers. Transports in reserves with embarked units inherit the reserves status. Transport on table with embarked units inherit the on table status for deployment purposes.

Simple and elegant way of describing what I do... I like this!

Ghorgul wrote:
This question is partially open for interpretation, especially when FAQ states that flyer embarked units do not count on being on battlefield. It is not clearly stated whether embarked units are on table or not, rules imply they are not on table.

Easiest way to handle this, which also makes common sense is to assume all the embarked units inherit the status of the transport.

So units embarked on transport flyer, which is on table, inherit the status flyer from the transport. This is for the purposes of losing game for having only flyers. Transports in reserves with embarked units inherit the reserves status. Transport on table with embarked units inherit the on table status for deployment purposes.

My only problem with this is the issue with flyers, because the FAQ doesn't state that flyer embarked units don't count, it says that flyers don't. And since flyer is a battlefield role, not a status, the unit inside couldn't really inherit it. The Flyer's status is still "on the battlefield", the just don't count for sudden death, and so the unit inside would still inherit "on the battlefield" as their status, but not being a flyer, they would count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Which would be a great argument if those two situations were at all comparable. Unfortunately, they aren't.

In your opinion. In my opinion they are.

You know what doesn't depend on peoples opinions? The RaW.

Except when people read it different ways or it's unclear... which is most of the reason this forum exists.

Yeah, but the problem here is that the master of insisting that RaW isn't clear doesn't, in this case, want to acknowledge that the RaW isn't clear.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
This question is partially open for interpretation, especially when FAQ states that flyer embarked units do not count on being on battlefield. It is not clearly stated whether embarked units are on table or not, rules imply they are not on table.

Easiest way to handle this, which also makes common sense is to assume all the embarked units inherit the status of the transport.

So units embarked on transport flyer, which is on table, inherit the status flyer from the transport. This is for the purposes of losing game for having only flyers. Transports in reserves with embarked units inherit the reserves status. Transport on table with embarked units inherit the on table status for deployment purposes.

My only problem with this is the issue with flyers, because the FAQ doesn't state that flyer embarked units don't count, it says that flyers don't. And since flyer is a battlefield role, not a status, the unit inside couldn't really inherit it. The Flyer's status is still "on the battlefield", the just don't count for sudden death, and so the unit inside would still inherit "on the battlefield" as their status, but not being a flyer, they would count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Which would be a great argument if those two situations were at all comparable. Unfortunately, they aren't.

In your opinion. In my opinion they are.

You know what doesn't depend on peoples opinions? The RaW.

Except when people read it different ways or it's unclear... which is most of the reason this forum exists.

Yeah, but the problem here is that the master of insisting that RaW isn't clear doesn't, in this case, want to acknowledge that the RaW isn't clear.

That's a whole other problem and nothing to do with the Rules themselves.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
My only problem with this is the issue with flyers, because the FAQ doesn't state that flyer embarked units don't count, it says that flyers don't. And since flyer is a battlefield role, not a status, the unit inside couldn't really inherit it. The Flyer's status is still "on the battlefield", the just don't count for sudden death, and so the unit inside would still inherit "on the battlefield" as their status, but not being a flyer, they would count.

There is no such thing as status as far as I know, I just used it because it's clear way to define units on table and in reserves. 40k in general lacks specific terminology for many things, which is a shame. I came up with the whole inheritance scheme to simplify the interactions, as the 40k general rules still lack clear consistent structure in many different parts.
I agree with the Flyers being Battlefield Role, but the fact remains there is no clear rule that states whether embarked units are on table or not. Embarked units for example cannot hold objectives from inside transport if I recall correctly (I don't have access to rulebook atm), and this fact is in direct conflict with idea of embarked unit being on table.

From latest 40k general FAQ:

When determining if a player has any units on the battlefield, do not include any units with the Flyer Battlefield Role – these units cannot operate within a combat airspace indefinitely and they cannot hold territory without ground support. Furthermore, do not include any units with the Fortification Battlefield Role unless they have a unit embarked inside.

Consider here that the rule quoted above states special case for units with Fortification Battlefield Role and embarked units within. No such special case is mentioned for Flyer Battlefield Role and units embarked within. Therefore my recommendation is to have embarked units inherit the status and Battlefield Role of the Transport they are embarked in as long as they are embarked within.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
My only problem with this is the issue with flyers, because the FAQ doesn't state that flyer embarked units don't count, it says that flyers don't. And since flyer is a battlefield role, not a status, the unit inside couldn't really inherit it. The Flyer's status is still "on the battlefield", the just don't count for sudden death, and so the unit inside would still inherit "on the battlefield" as their status, but not being a flyer, they would count.

It becomes a problem when you're (the player with flyer transport) are ferrying a few units zooming across the whole game. Tell me what is the diffrence between four stormravens flying around vs four stormravens with a unit of scouts embarked in one them?

 skchsan wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
My only problem with this is the issue with flyers, because the FAQ doesn't state that flyer embarked units don't count, it says that flyers don't. And since flyer is a battlefield role, not a status, the unit inside couldn't really inherit it. The Flyer's status is still "on the battlefield", the just don't count for sudden death, and so the unit inside would still inherit "on the battlefield" as their status, but not being a flyer, they would count.

It becomes a problem when you're (the player with flyer transport) are ferrying a few units zooming across the whole game. Tell me what is the diffrence between four stormravens flying around vs four stormravens with a unit of scouts embarked in one them?

Easy. If need be, the scouts can get out.

 Arkaine wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The 50% limit isn't to do with drops tho. It's a totally different restriction

That's false meandering. Tactical Reserves pertains to Deployment, references it as such and states it applies "When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game" and demands that "at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere". The FAQ is clear that units embarked on transports are not a separate deployment choice, citing that units set up elsewhere still are a deployment choice. What is a deployment choice? A model? A battalion? A detachment? The deployment rules are on each mission and the only choice given is selecting units from your army. The FAQ has established that deployment choices for transports are not separate from the embarked unit. The only thing that constitutes a deployment choice is a unit, the same sort limiting Tactical Reserves in the first place, the same sort that the FAQ grants exception to for embarked units on transports. Tactical Reserves requires half your units be deployed even if they are set up elsewhere yet the FAQ removes transported units from counting as set up elsewhere for the purpose of deployment, which is the entire thing Tactical Reserves resolves around and applies to. It is established here by GW that they count as a single unit for the purpose of deployment, all purposes of deployment including the requirements of Tactical Reserves. This limit does indeed have to do with drops when the rules establish that half the army's units during Deployment must be set up on the battlefield while simultaneously showing that during Deployment both transport and embarked unit do not count as separate deployment choices, which as has been established are units. The rules cannot demand the embarked unit count towards either of the two states, on the board or elsewhere, when it treats the two units as a single entity. If you do so, you are violating the rules by treating the embarked unit as anything other than a single deployment choice, i.e. unit.

Whether you set them up on the ground or in deep strike, you treat both the transport unit and the embarked unit as a single unit during deployment, which is the only time Tactical Reserves applies.

I'm not seeing how you're equating "units" with "deployment choices", or how a transport and its cargo would be a single unit. It doesn't say that.

Also, if a unit isn't on the battlefield it isn't on the battlefield. There is no third option unless the rules say so. And they don't.

Ghorgul wrote:
From latest 40k general FAQ:

When determining if a player has any units on the battlefield, do not include any units with the Flyer Battlefield Role – these units cannot operate within a combat airspace indefinitely and they cannot hold territory without ground support. Furthermore, do not include any units with the Fortification Battlefield Role unless they have a unit embarked inside.

Consider here that the rule quoted above states special case for units with Fortification Battlefield Role and embarked units within. No such special case is mentioned for Flyer Battlefield Role and units embarked within. Therefore my recommendation is to have embarked units inherit the status and Battlefield Role of the Transport they are embarked in as long as they are embarked within.

I'd say the FAQ quote given is ample evidence GW intend embarked units not to count as being on the table for any purposes, otherwise the last sentence would be superfluous as the embarked unit would count even if the Fortification didn't.

 Cream Tea wrote:
I'm not seeing how you're equating "units" with "deployment choices", or how a transport and its cargo would be a single unit. It doesn't say that.

Also, if a unit isn't on the battlefield it isn't on the battlefield. There is no third option unless the rules say so. And they don't.

One has already been explained, read again and slowly this time then come up with your counter evidence to contradict it rather than acknowledging you're incapable of spotting it. Two is my point as well, you're not contradicting anything I've already stated, there is indeed no third option and the embarked units do not count as being on the battlefield, the transport rules make it clear they are off it, yet the rules grant an exception to how they are treated for the purpose of deployment which governs Tactical Reserves as well. It's a counts as rule. Anyway, I've sufficiently explained the concept and it's supported by every major tournament so unless you come with specific examples I will not entertain an inability to understand the point.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
I'm not seeing how you're equating "units" with "deployment choices", or how a transport and its cargo would be a single unit. It doesn't say that.

Also, if a unit isn't on the battlefield it isn't on the battlefield. There is no third option unless the rules say so. And they don't.

One has already been explained, read again and slowly this time then come up with your counter evidence to contradict it rather than acknowledging you're incapable of spotting it. Two is my point as well, you're not contradicting anything I've already stated, there is indeed no third option and the embarked units do not count as being on the battlefield, the transport rules make it clear they are off it, yet the rules grant an exception to how they are treated for the purpose of deployment which governs Tactical Reserves as well. It's a counts as rule. Anyway, I've sufficiently explained the concept and it's supported by every major tournament so unless you come with specific examples I will not entertain an inability to understand the point.

The Tactical Reserves rule says that "When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere."

It does not say "at least half of your deployment choices", if it did I would agree with you. You need to deploy at least half the total number of units in your army on the battlefield, and this number doesn't change depending on whether your units are embarked on transports or not.

The Designers' Commentary says "Q: In missions where players alternate deploying units, do units that are set up somewhere other than the battlefield still count as a player’s deployment choice? What about units that begin the battle embarked within a transport?
A: 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."

This appears to be written to address the "number of drops" question, and not the one we're discussing. This is why it's hard to apply here. Nowhere is it said that embarked units are part of the same unit as the transport, it only says that they're not separate deployment choices. They're still separate units, ones that haven't been set up on the battlefield. Indeed, they haven't been "set up" at all, merely "declared" to be embarked on the transport.

Your interpretation feels intuitive, and obviously works just fine. Is it how it was intended to be? I don't know. Is it RaW? I don't think so.

I mean no offence, I'm just disagreeing with you.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
My only problem with this is the issue with flyers, because the FAQ doesn't state that flyer embarked units don't count, it says that flyers don't. And since flyer is a battlefield role, not a status, the unit inside couldn't really inherit it. The Flyer's status is still "on the battlefield", the just don't count for sudden death, and so the unit inside would still inherit "on the battlefield" as their status, but not being a flyer, they would count.

It becomes a problem when you're (the player with flyer transport) are ferrying a few units zooming across the whole game. Tell me what is the diffrence between four stormravens flying around vs four stormravens with a unit of scouts embarked in one them?

Easy. If need be, the scouts can get out.

The FAQ was clear on their intent on their ruling for flyers - to prevent flyer spamming.

Once all the models on battlefield are embarked on the transports and only the flyers are the only models effectively in play, this is no different than the precise case GW was trying to prevent.