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.

Hi following question, just to be clear:

I have a Stormraven and I decide to place 8 single model units in it (8 captains f.e.).
Do i know have 9 Units “on the battlefield”? So am I able to place 9 strike squads in tactical reserves?

Kind regards

JannekL wrote:
Hi following question, just to be clear:

I have a Stormraven and I decide to place 8 single model units in it (8 captains f.e.).
Do i know have 9 Units “on the battlefield”? So am I able to place 9 strike squads in tactical reserves?

Kind regards

RaW you do not, you only have the 1 on the battlefield, the Stormraven.

I don't know how many people would house rule it to be otherwise though, might want to talk about it pre-game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JannekL wrote:
Hi following question, just to be clear:

I have a Stormraven and I decide to place 8 single model units in it (8 captains f.e.).
Do i know have 9 Units “on the battlefield”? So am I able to place 9 strike squads in tactical reserves?

Kind regards

RaW you do not, you only have the 1 on the battlefield, the Stormraven.

I don't know how many people would house rule it to be otherwise though, might want to talk about it pre-game.

It's an odd situation RAW only the Stormraven is but RAW the units inside it aren't in tactical Reserve so it's a bit of a grey area until a FAQ clears it.

Just pointing some people consider people embarked into a transport as being deployed in the battlefield.

A lot of people consider embarked units as being on the battlefield if the transport is, as the point of the Tactical Reserves 50% would seem to limit 'deploy anywhere' flexibility, not penalise using a Transport as a Transport.

It's not house-ruling to do so in my opinion, either.

I don't have my rulebook infront of me to directly quote this, and maybe someone can back up my response here, but doesn't the tactical reserves rule for matched play state that you can only place half of the total units in your force in tactical reserves? Not that half must start deployed? Units in transports are not placed in tactical reserves. They are on the board, just limited to their capabilities until they disembark.

 The Whiteshield Kid wrote:
I don't have my rulebook infront of me to directly quote this, and maybe someone can back up my response here, but doesn't the tactical reserves rule for matched play state that you can only place half of the total units in your force in tactical reserves? Not that half must start deployed? Units in transports are not placed in tactical reserves. They are on the board, just limited to their capabilities until they disembark.

Annoyingly it's the other way around:

Ah, had it reversed. But I'm still standing by my argument that units in transports are on the board. Those units do not have an ability that allows you to be placed in reserves such as being in the teleportarium or something similar found in their specific data sheet. Also, to further the question, if you rule it as these units are in reserves, then if I don't disembark by the end of turn 3, is the unit destroyed? Or why do you get to fire from open topped vehicles if said unit isn't on the board? Just seems like too many things working against the argument that these units in transports count towards your reinforcement limits

No, they’re not on the board. It specifically tells you, when embarking models, that they are removed from the battlefield.

 Lord Perversor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JannekL wrote:
Hi following question, just to be clear:

I have a Stormraven and I decide to place 8 single model units in it (8 captains f.e.).
Do i know have 9 Units “on the battlefield”? So am I able to place 9 strike squads in tactical reserves?

Kind regards

RaW you do not, you only have the 1 on the battlefield, the Stormraven.

I don't know how many people would house rule it to be otherwise though, might want to talk about it pre-game.

It's an odd situation RAW only the Stormraven is but RAW the units inside it aren't in tactical Reserve so it's a bit of a grey area until a FAQ clears it.

Just pointing some people consider people embarked into a transport as being deployed in the battlefield.

There is no such thing as "Tactical Reserves" there is only being set up "on the battlefield" and "not on the battlefield". The Tactical Reserves rule then imposes limits on how many can be of each states.

Anything that is not actual honest to Manperor on the table at the games start is "not on the battlefield".

@The Whiteshield Kid, you're simply plain wrong on this point. This was a RaW "issue" found very early into 8th edition and since GW have issued no errata it can only be assumed that this is how it's meant to be.

 The Whiteshield Kid wrote:
Ah, had it reversed. But I'm still standing by my argument that units in transports are on the board. Those units do not have an ability that allows you to be placed in reserves such as being in the teleportarium or something similar found in their specific data sheet. Also, to further the question, if you rule it as these units are in reserves, then if I don't disembark by the end of turn 3, is the unit destroyed? Or why do you get to fire from open topped vehicles if said unit isn't on the board? Just seems like too many things working against the argument that these units in transports count towards your reinforcement limits

Only if we had a nickel for everytime this happened.

The transports are truly one of the wonkiest rules in 8th ed right now. While units are embarked on a transport, they are [off battlefield] (refer to transport rule) but not necessarily in RESERVES (refer to Tactical Reserves rule).

'Destroyed if not disembarked by turn 3' is another issue with the phrase "if the unit has not arrived on the battlefield," found under Tactical Reserves rule, where it should specifically only apply to units in reserves, but because of the ambiguity in its wording, RAW, it applies to units that are [off battlefield] via being embarked in a transport.

TL/DR
Units embarked in a transport that is deployed at the beginning of the game are considered to be deployed (as in they are not set up in reserves), but they are off battlefield for all purposes of the game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the Tactical Reserves blurb had read instead, here the underlined words are the revisions to the existing Tactical Reserves blurb:

"Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up in Reserves in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using, teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play games, 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 in Reserves. Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield from Reserves by the end of the third battle round counts having been destroyed."

Would clear up a lot in terms of defining the new reserves rules.

As for the transport rule, we'll have to wait for a FAQ to tell us whether this is as intended or revised as intended.

Piggyback:

Say you have a 5 man assault marine squad embarked in a Stormraven which is the only model left on the table. Do you lose due to the boots on the ground FAQ?

Importantly. I think if you say the dudes inside said transports are not on the battlefield. They'd all die turn 3 if they never get out of thier transport, as none of them would have counted as being on the table at any point.

This can be taken further in that the units set up in the transports could be considered set up in reserves as they are set up in some way that lets them arrive mid battle and also count as ahving moved when set up. Thus only half your units could be set up in this way meaning any all transport armies would have to be 1:1 units and transports.

As such you really have to decide do folks in transports die on turn 3 if they never got out (sorry open topped transports), Or do you count them toward units deployed on the battle friend..

Just going through all the logical steps that kind of end up being taken when you start stating that the unit's doun't count as being on the battle field when deployed in a transport. If all the above is true or not is up to your interpretations. Any way this might help narrow down the question:

Q: For the purposes of the Tactical Reserves matched play rule,
do units that act separately after they have been set up (e.g. Mek
Gunz and their Grot Crew, T’au Battlesuits and their Drones,
units that have the Vehicle Squadron ability, etc.) count as
being a single unit, or several units?
A: Such units are a single unit for the purposes of the
Tactical Reserves rule.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Piggyback:

Say you have a 5 man assault marine squad embarked in a Stormraven which is the only model left on the table. Do you lose due to the boots on the ground FAQ?

No you'd lose due to Sudden Death. Boots on ground merely stipulates that flyers can never be scoring units.

mmimzie wrote:
Importantly. I think if you say the dudes inside said transports are not on the battlefield. They'd all die turn 3 if they never get out of thier transport, as none of them would have counted as being on the table at any point.

Yes, this is correct and indisputable.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
Importantly. I think if you say the dudes inside said transports are not on the battlefield. They'd all die turn 3 if they never get out of thier transport, as none of them would have counted as being on the table at any point.

Yes, this is correct and indisputable.

It is correct as per RAW, but disputable as RAI.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
Importantly. I think if you say the dudes inside said transports are not on the battlefield. They'd all die turn 3 if they never get out of thier transport, as none of them would have counted as being on the table at any point.

Yes, this is correct and indisputable.

It is correct as per RAW, but disputable as RAI.

It's also disputable that my conscripts are only a single wound "RaI". RaI is less than worthless imho and should never under any circumstances be involved in a rule discussion. You're free to make up as many house rules as you want, but don't claim something is different from the rules in the rulebook because you think it's not RaI.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
Importantly. I think if you say the dudes inside said transports are not on the battlefield. They'd all die turn 3 if they never get out of thier transport, as none of them would have counted as being on the table at any point.

Yes, this is correct and indisputable.

It is correct as per RAW, but disputable as RAI.

It's also disputable that my conscripts are only a single wound "RaI". RaI is less than worthless imho and should never under any circumstances be involved in a rule discussion. You're free to make up as many house rules as you want, but don't claim something is different from the rules in the rulebook because you think it's not RaI.

your noted tendancies toward pedantry to the point of obnoxiousness do not change the fact that players have to interpret some rules in order to make the game playable. Do you simply flip a coin to decide the winner, handshake and walk away when you go down to your FLGS?

RAI does exist, and does have a place, it's the interpretation that allows the game to function in any coherent way as a playable game, while deviating as little as possible from the actual rules as written.

WindstormSCR wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
Importantly. I think if you say the dudes inside said transports are not on the battlefield. They'd all die turn 3 if they never get out of thier transport, as none of them would have counted as being on the table at any point.

Yes, this is correct and indisputable.

It is correct as per RAW, but disputable as RAI.

It's also disputable that my conscripts are only a single wound "RaI". RaI is less than worthless imho and should never under any circumstances be involved in a rule discussion. You're free to make up as many house rules as you want, but don't claim something is different from the rules in the rulebook because you think it's not RaI.

your noted tendancies toward pedantry to the point of obnoxiousness do not change the fact that players have to interpret some rules in order to make the game playable. Do you simply flip a coin to decide the winner, handshake and walk away when you go down to your FLGS?

RAI does exist, and does have a place, it's the interpretation that allows the game to function in any coherent way as a playable game, while deviating as little as possible from the actual rules as written.

While i see where you are coming from, and i think in some way RAI is used; I think when it comes to YMDC, we should try to get the RAW answer as that is the universal answer that no one should be able to argue against, but can instead decide to house rule a RAI answer as they see fit on an individual level.

Using RAI causes issues like people to go years throw all thier grenades in melee until years later when the edition is gonna die it gets FAQ'd that you could only use 1.

The issue at hand here is "do the statements made specifically under 'tactical reserves' affect core rules of similar but not same situation?" Here, the 'more specific' rule does not directly contradict a given core rule. Therefore, we cannot assume that this 'more specific' rule overrides any existing rules. So, where do we draw the line? This is why RAI is relevant and disputable in this given case.

At best, the phrase pertaining to the end of 3rd turn penalty is more akin to your 'reminder text' than a rule override for matched plays.

 skchsan wrote:
The issue at hand here is "do the statements made specifically under 'tactical reserves' affect core rules of similar but not same situation?" Here, the 'more specific' rule does not directly contradict a given core rule. Therefore, we cannot assume that this 'more specific' rule overrides any existing rules. So, where do we draw the line? This is why RAI is relevant and disputable in this given case.

We don't draw a line. We don't know there intent. What if they didn't intend for everything to be in transports like crazy, and thus your models in transports are part of your tactical reserves, and they don't assume you can stay in them all game, so you ahve to at some point get out. This way it's fair for people that didn't bring armor cracker armies that can't deal with that kind of transport spam.

We don't know what kind of game the devs wanted to make, and assuming one thing or another can harm others unintentionally for no real reason.

As such our line is the devs letter of law, and if you want to reconfigure that on your own. That's neat, but we could be harming others abilities to play the game for no reason other than trying to grasp at straws of intent.

Again the point of YMDC is specificly RAW for the most part as stated in the pined thread up at the top https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

So this whole thread is RAW or how you'd play it.

At the end of the day playing the game by raw i'd say you either way it as transported models are part of your tactical reserves and treat them as such, or you use the FAQ i linked and you argue that they are set up as a single unit, and become two units via the rules of disembarking later in the game. In my opinion troops as tactical reserves makes the most since via raw by a far mile, and if i had to make a RAI arguement it would be as above, but again those don't fly for me. or the rules of the thread.

mmimzie wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The issue at hand here is "do the statements made specifically under 'tactical reserves' affect core rules of similar but not same situation?" Here, the 'more specific' rule does not directly contradict a given core rule. Therefore, we cannot assume that this 'more specific' rule overrides any existing rules. So, where do we draw the line? This is why RAI is relevant and disputable in this given case.

We don't draw a line. We don't know there intent. What if they didn't intend for everything to be in transports like crazy, and thus your models in transports are part of your tactical reserves, and they don't assume you can stay in them all game, so you ahve to at some point get out. This way it's fair for people that didn't bring armor cracker armies that can't deal with that kind of transport spam.

We don't know what kind of game the devs wanted to make, and assuming one thing or another can harm others unintentionally for no real reason.

As such our line is the devs letter of law, and if you want to reconfigure that on your own. That's neat, but we could be harming others abilities to play the game for no reason other than trying to grasp at straws of intent.

Ok but where does this "devs letter of law" tells you to apply rules written for tactical reserves to be applied for embarked models in transport? Units in reserves are 'off battlefield, in reserves' while units in transports are 'off battlefield, deployed' status. It's logically and grammatically correct to assume that the rules written under Tactical Reserves heading to only pertain to Tactical Reserves, those that are 'off battlefield, in reserves' status.

You don't write the a leading sentence and supporting sentences in paragraph one, don't finish a thought, go on tangent for two more paragraphs, have irrelevant lead sentence and supporting sentences and then write the concluding sentence for the first paragraph in your fourth paragraph.

EDIT

I dont think you fully understand the RAW issue at hand. As per RAW, embarked units are NOT IN RESERVES, OFF BATTLEFIELD status. Being embarked does not grant you to be in reserves. Therefore, units beginning the game embarked on a transport does not count towards the number of units you have deployed ON BATTLEFIELD for the purpose of calculating how many units you can put into reserves.

TL/DR
RAW - units must fulfill both [deployed] and [on battlefield] conditions to be able to be counted for the total number units able to be put [in reserves][off battlefield]. Units embarked in transport at the beginning of the game are [deployed][off battlefield] status.

You can be [deployed, off battlefield], [deployed, on battlefield], [in reserves, off battlefield] but you cannot be [in reserves, on battlefield]. Your understanding of the RAW, having embarked units counted as being in reserves but on battlefield violates the Tactical Reserves rule as it explicitly states units in reserves are of off battlefield status.

 skchsan wrote:

mmimzie wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The issue at hand here is "do the statements made specifically under 'tactical reserves' affect core rules of similar but not same situation?" Here, the 'more specific' rule does not directly contradict a given core rule. Therefore, we cannot assume that this 'more specific' rule overrides any existing rules. So, where do we draw the line? This is why RAI is relevant and disputable in this given case.

We don't draw a line. We don't know there intent. What if they didn't intend for everything to be in transports like crazy, and thus your models in transports are part of your tactical reserves, and they don't assume you can stay in them all game, so you ahve to at some point get out. This way it's fair for people that didn't bring armor cracker armies that can't deal with that kind of transport spam.

We don't know what kind of game the devs wanted to make, and assuming one thing or another can harm others unintentionally for no real reason.

As such our line is the devs letter of law, and if you want to reconfigure that on your own. That's neat, but we could be harming others abilities to play the game for no reason other than trying to grasp at straws of intent.

Ok but where does this "devs letter of law" tells you to apply rules written for tactical reserves to be applied for embarked models in transport? Units in reserves are 'off battlefield, in reserves' while units in transports are 'off battlefield, deployed' status. It's logically and grammatically correct to assume that the rules written under Tactical Reserves heading to only pertain to Tactical Reserves, those that are 'off battlefield, in reserves' status.

You don't write the a leading sentence and supporting sentences in paragraph one, don't finish a thought, go on tangent for two more paragraphs, have irrelevant lead sentence and supporting sentences and then write the concluding sentence for the first paragraph in your fourth paragraph.

EDIT

I dont think you fully understand the RAW issue at hand. As per RAW, embarked units are NOT IN RESERVES, OFF BATTLEFIELD status. Being embarked does not grant you to be in reserves. Therefore, units beginning the game embarked on a transport does not count towards the number of units you have deployed ON BATTLEFIELD for the purpose of calculating how many units you can put into reserves.

TL/DR
RAW - units must fulfill both [deployed] and [on battlefield] conditions to be able to be counted for the total number units able to be put [in reserves][off battlefield]. Units embarked in transport at the beginning of the game are [deployed][off battlefield] status.

You can be [deployed, off battlefield], [deployed, on battlefield], [in reserves, off battlefield] but you cannot be [in reserves, on battlefield]. Your understanding of the RAW, having embarked units counted as being in reserves but on battlefield violates the Tactical Reserves rule as it explicitly states units in reserves are of off battlefield status.

That is actualy a great RAW argument, and the one you should have made to begin with.

So the tactical reserves rule states " ....... in order to arrive mild battle as reinforcements." When talking about the units who count as tactical reserves they are units that when first set-up in the battle field are done so at the end of a movement phase and can't adanvce, as per " This happens at the end of movement phase but can happen during other phases. Units that are set up in this manner can't move or advance....."

So now we have a good base for what the reserves are.... kind of but not really... as reservese aren't ever talked about in the tactical reserves rule at all.



t

However, what has yet to be disproven are these lines of rules:

".... atleast half the units in your army must be set up on the battle field..."

This means that if you ahve an army that has 10 tac squads 2 captains and 10 rhinos all of which want to start in the rhino that you can't infarct do this. As 12 of your units are set up in the rhino and only 10 rhinos are "on the battle field." While tmultiple times in the embarking and disembarking parts of the transport rules they describe setting up the models on the battle field... sooo


So at the very least the above issue remains, and it can't exist to have one or the other... and you haven't sited any rules that refute that assertion at all.

Further more the tactical reserves rule states that units that haven't arrive on the battle field die.

SO again i assert either the units in transports count as being on the battle field and thus you may bring more reserves for them, or units in transports have to follow the tactical reserves rule <.<....

If you could point to anything in the rules that state otherwise to anything here or helps pick which of the two realities we live in then that'd be great, but your saying stuff that isn't backed by raw.

I guess i didn't really clarify what the problem is:
When stuff is called up for needing half your army on the battle field or for things not arrive dying. The game never at any point states that this only effect units put in "reserves." it holistically talks about all units in your army that aren't on the battle field.

So you can HYWPI by saying either the units deployed in transports do count as being on the battle field, and thus can bring more models that arrive via reinforcements, or you must include units deployed in transports for all tactical reserves considerations. There isn't any real wiggle room here.

Sorry but youre not making sense. Why does units in transport not counting towards having models on battlefield allow you to bring more reserves for them? And who is this them in reference? I dont understand where you feel Im not referring the the RAW? You seem to be misunderstanding my stance on the RAW as one of RAI.

It looks like you've mistaken my comment to be directed at you. It was actually directed at BCB's "undisputable" comment.

Going back to the point, you're now going back to a discussion that has been being discussed since 8th ed was launched.

Via transport: embarking - '... remove the models from the battlefield...'
Via transport: disembarking - '... set it up on the battlefield...'

As per RAW, the act of embarking sets a unit onto "off battlefield" state where it can be restored to "on battlefield" state upon disembarking.

Tactical Reserves rule states the models are set up elsewhere (off battlefield) in an appropriate Reserves locale. The when and how a model is irrelevant as this pertains to how the units gains [on battlefield] status from reserves.

If you have 10 rhinos with 12 units (10 5man tac squads + 2 captains) they can ALL begin the game embarked on the transports becuase embarking on a transport doesnt putthe embarked units in tactical reserves.

What you cant do is put 10 units of tac squads into 5 rhinos, then have 15 Assault marines w/ jump pack (since it would be a horrible point sink) as while this has total of 15 deployed units, only 5 of them are on battlefield, therefore you can only put 5 assualt marine units in reserves.

Nowhere in the rulebook tells you being embarked = being in reserve. If I missed that point, please "back it up with RAW"

 skchsan wrote:
Sorry but youre not making sense. Why does units in transport not counting towards having models on battlefield allow you to bring more reserves for them? And who is this them in reference? I dont understand where you feel Im not referring the the RAW? You seem to be misunderstanding my stance on the RAW as one of RAI.

It looks like you've mistaken my comment to be directed at you. It was actually directed at BCB's "undisputable" comment.

Going back to the point, you're now going back to a discussion that has been being discussed since 8th ed was launched.

Via transport: embarking - '... remove the models from the battlefield...'
Via transport: disembarking - '... set it up on the battlefield...'

As per RAW, the act of embarking sets a unit onto "off battlefield" state where it can be restored to "on battlefield" state upon disembarking.

Tactical Reserves rule states the models are set up elsewhere (off battlefield) in an appropriate Reserves locale. The when and how a model is irrelevant as this pertains to how the units gains [on battlefield] status from reserves.

If you have 10 rhinos with 12 units (10 5man tac squads + 2 captains) they can ALL begin the game embarked on the transports becuase embarking on a transport doesnt putthe embarked units in tactical reserves.

What you cant do is put 10 units of tac squads into 5 rhinos, then have 15 Assault marines w/ jump pack (since it would be a horrible point sink) as while this has total of 15 deployed units, only 5 of them are on battlefield, therefore you can only put 5 assualt marine units in reserves.

Nowhere in the rulebook tells you being embarked = being in reserve. If I missed that point, please "back it up with RAW"

I guess you missed the quote:

"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 else where"

As you said setting units up in rhinos is not also setting them up on the battle field. As such if you set up 5 rhinos and put 10 tac squads isnide only 5 of your units are set up on the table... thus only 1/3rd of your total number of units in your are set up on the battlefield. This is against that very rule.

Note that the rule does not say[u] "You can only set up as many reserve units as have set up on the battlefield" Nor does it say "this excludes units who are set up in side of transports" This isn't in the book.

Simply put if it is the case that the units inside the transport aren't set up on the battle field, this then means that you have to options:

1. Units in transports are not set up on the battle field, thus they must follow this rule. As the rule in no way stipulates that transport units are ignored, nor does it go so far as to say this rule only pertains to units that are set up in 'reserves.' (arguemetns can be made for them dying or not dying at the end of the third battle round, and i thought you were trying to make this argument.)

or

2. Units in transports count as being set up on the battle field (where the rules never says this happens, and as you point out it clearly states the opposite).

As such models embarked on transports are effected by the tactical reserve rule.

Read the rule, read what i quoted. It's all plainly there.

Edit for clarity:

the issue here is that the rule says "half your army" it's not saying you can only set up as many reserves as you do normal units, or anything to the effect. Again as you say dudes in transports aren't on the battlefield. i agree completely. As such when embarked they aren't set up on the battle field and thus don;t count toward being half your army... but they do count toward being the total of your army...

mmimzie wrote:
As such when embarked they aren't set up and thus don;t count toward being half your army... but they do count toward being the total of your army...

Take a closer look at the transport rules, you'll see the term "set up" is explicitly used.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

mmimzie wrote:
As such when embarked they aren't set up and thus don;t count toward being half your army... but they do count toward being the total of your army...

Take a closer look at the transport rules, you'll see the term "set up" is explicitly used.

sorry i meant they aren't set up on the battle field. editted and fixed now thanks for the catch

While one could maybe argue that units "embarked" count as being somewhere other than the battlefield. Except of course for the part that comes right after in the transport rules that tell you they now count as being in the transport...which is on the battlefield.

Also the rule about being destroyed if not arriving on the battlefield by turn 3 ONLY applies to "Tactical Reserves" hence why it's found under "Tactical Reserves" and nowhere else.

So if a squad rides around in a Rhino for 4 turns it's not destroyed because it's not in tactical reserves. So even if one argues they have not arrived on the table itself...they aren't in tactical reserves and that is all the rule applies too.

Wagguy80 wrote:
While one could maybe argue that units "embarked" count as being somewhere other than the battlefield. Except of course for the part that comes right after in the transport rules that tell you they now count as being in the transport...which is on the battlefield.

Also the rule about being destroyed if not arriving on the battlefield by turn 3 ONLY applies to "Tactical Reserves" hence why it's found under "Tactical Reserves" and nowhere else.

So if a squad rides around in a Rhino for 4 turns it's not destroyed because it's not in tactical reserves. So even if one argues they have not arrived on the table itself...they aren't in tactical reserves and that is all the rule applies too.

1) It literally says to remove the unit from the battlefield. "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport."

2) FOR THE LOVE OF ALL STOP SIGNS IN THE GALAXY. CEASE. AND. [HONK]. DESIST. There is not such thing as being Tactical Reserves. Never has been in 8th and never will be. All the Tactical Reserves rule is limit how many units can be not on the battlefield and also kills them if they are not on by turn 3. There isn't some magical space that exists for units in Reserves like there was in previous editions.

3) Yes, it is destroyed by the Tactical Reserves rule, if you play by the rules that is. You're free to house rule it all you want of course.

Wagguy80 wrote:
While one could maybe argue that units "embarked" count as being somewhere other than the battlefield. Except of course for the part that comes right after in the transport rules that tell you they now count as being in the transport...which is on the battlefield.

Also the rule about being destroyed if not arriving on the battlefield by turn 3 ONLY applies to "Tactical Reserves" hence why it's found under "Tactical Reserves" and nowhere else.

So if a squad rides around in a Rhino for 4 turns it's not destroyed because it's not in tactical reserves. So even if one argues they have not arrived on the table itself...they aren't in tactical reserves and that is all the rule applies too.

basicly what bacon says. the tactical reserve rules. Doesn't excude itself to units that in "reserves" which as said sort of doesn't exist. Nor does it restrict it to reinforcements which do exist, but again aren't specified.

Also being in the transport that is on the battlefield doesn't actualy mean anything as for all other rules purposes the units aren't there at all until they get out of the transport is destroyed. While as other posters have clearly presented that units in the transport are obviously not on the battle field as they are consistantly being removed or set up on the battlefield when being placed in a transport.


Now while i do maintain that you are limited by how many units can be transported by the half of your army rule in the tactical reserves rule.

An arguement can be made for the units not dying by pointing on some very nit picky stuff in the tactical reserves rule. Which si what i thought skchsan was trying to refer to:

"... in matched play games, any unit that has not yet arrived on the battlefield by the end of the game third battle round count as being destroyed"

and

" units have rules that allow them to ".... arrive on the battle field mid game as reinforcements"

in this we could make a weak inference that units the arrive are reinforcements, and else where units that are reinforcement arrive at the end of the movement phase and during other phases. Which would exclude models embarked on the traports. Now while this doesn't allow units in transports to count toward half your army being on the battlefield. It does allow you to make a loop whole to units in transports from dying if they never disembarked by the end of the third battle around. It's pretty shakey string stuff here.

How i would play it would be to say you must deploy half your army on the battlefield and units in transports don't count toward that half as this is painfully written out as being the case in the rules. Then maybe i'd say they don't die turn 3 as some grounds can be claimed that they don't have any ability to "arrive" on the battle field, and units that do "arrive" onto the battle field do exist, and these are spelled out as being units who are themselves reinforcements, and these are units who when they arrive can't advance or move further, but may other wise act normally when they arrived despite counting as having models for that turn.

That'd be my pretty final answer on the matter i think.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:
While one could maybe argue that units "embarked" count as being somewhere other than the battlefield. Except of course for the part that comes right after in the transport rules that tell you they now count as being in the transport...which is on the battlefield.

Also the rule about being destroyed if not arriving on the battlefield by turn 3 ONLY applies to "Tactical Reserves" hence why it's found under "Tactical Reserves" and nowhere else.

So if a squad rides around in a Rhino for 4 turns it's not destroyed because it's not in tactical reserves. So even if one argues they have not arrived on the table itself...they aren't in tactical reserves and that is all the rule applies too.

1) It literally says to remove the unit from the battlefield. "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport."

2) FOR THE LOVE OF ALL STOP SIGNS IN THE GALAXY. CEASE. AND. [HONK]. DESIST. There is not such thing as being Tactical Reserves. Never has been in 8th and never will be. All the Tactical Reserves rule is limit how many units can be not on the battlefield and also kills them if they are not on by turn 3. There isn't some magical space that exists for units in Reserves like there was in previous editions.

3) Yes, it is destroyed by the Tactical Reserves rule, if you play by the rules that is. You're free to house rule it all you want of course.

Taking a rule that is designed to limit flexibility and last turn douchbaggery of teleporting/etc. units and applying it to transported units is not the rules, the way I see it, but you're free to house rule it to be that way if you need to.

Also, saying "in Tactical Reserves" is a fairly valid shorthand for the myriad teleporty/etc. methods, and more up to date than "Derp Strike". It also includes any Ambush, move on from table edge etc. stuff. I'd argue it's a useful shorthand term with 8th ed rules basis for using it.

Lastly, in my reverse order rundown, in this case the Transports rule literally tells you it's simulating the models being inside the tank. Not in a teleportarium or Valkyrie or a tunnel, with lots of deployment location possibilities. It's in a tank, and we just put the models to one side rather than put them literally in the tank or on top of it. Conflating this abstraction with "unit isn't on the battlefield yet" is the root cause of confusion for those claiming that transported models die on turn 3... the same method (don't put models on table) is used for two very different states. It's not hard to get your head around unless trying to laser-lawyer read the rules.