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.

Watched a game on youtube (no clue where I found it and cant again...) This came up in it.
So the transport rules say transports can carry units (and their capacity etc). Add on that unit coherency does not apply until a unit is on the table, which you are not in a transport.
So, question came up. What prevents you from placing a unit in two separate transports (because of capacity, say). For example, I have 5 wraithguard and a farseer. A falcon tank will not hold them. I split them into two Falcons. When I deploy them from the transport(s) I deploy them into unit coherency.

Perhaps relevant: the exact wording for transports partially says "When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being..." Does that IT mean singular (as the plural might be them or those?) Which brings up this question: Is a unit embarked during set-up, actually set-up, and therefore must be set-up as one altogether unit? Units aren't really set-up one at a time anymore are they?

Have I broken RAW? Is this a "the rules tell you what you can do, and they don't say you can do this?" Have I missed an FAQ?

My group is leaning toward you cannot split a unit between transports.

Simply reading the core rules would have answered this.

Transports
Embark: If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a
friendly transport, they can embark within it. Remove the unit
from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked
inside the transport.

Where does it say a unit can embark inside transports (plural) ? It says transport (singular).

Agreed with p5freak. You cannot split a unit between multiple transports.

No, reading the core rules would not have "simply" answered this because this is GW. For the rule you cite my group did discuss this and found this flaw;
A unit starting the game inside a transport has not met the criteria in the rule you have stated. They have never moved or ended a move within 3" of the transport, because they cannot move or end a move since they do not exist in the game yet. Therefore, this in fact refutes the rule saying you can start within a transport, IF it is applied to starting within a transport. So, it can be argued that this rule has no bearing whatsoever on starting a unit within a transport, and covers a unit moving from the battlefield INTO a transport during the game.

On the other hand, since the word Embarked is used in the explanation for starting a unit inside a transport at the beginning of the game I can see an argument that the definition of embarked could include the phrases from this rule. Sadly, they did not include it in the portion of the rule applying to what I saw done in the report.

So since that rule you stated negates the ability to start a unit inside a transport before a game, it can be argued you must ignore it to start a unit inside, and therefore nowhere in the rest of the rules for transports does it use the language "a unit can embark in a transport". It does use the pronoun IT at one point as I cited earlier. It can be interpreted to be singular, but there are uses in the human language where it represents something made up of more than one thing (for example a team can be referred to as IT).

I will also point out my first post contained a reference to the rules telling you what you can do rather than what you cannot as an argument against. So I was looking for thoughts from others, to generate discussion on the subject, not a rather snarky comment that it is hard not to take as demeaning or an attack. Of course, the internet and Dakka and all applies, and I should have known that.

Now, again, I am not arguoing this is correct. My group has voted against it, but it was argued.

BRB Page 183 wrote:When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked within it instead of being set up separately

Note the singular "it", not the plural "them" or "they".

That has been my argument against this. The word IT is singular, with exceptions. Which is what the person in the video argued. It can be used to mean a group of things. He used the example of a team, as in "It rode the bus to the game. Which is not a perfect example but...another is a baseball series (say a 3 game series) can also be referred to as IT even though it is 3 games, because It refers to the series. Sheesh, now all that semantic pedantry aside (sorry...got carried away), I am not aware of any transports in the game that can be grouped as unit and fall under this obscure use.

So, again, I think this means the guy should not have done it. So seems a consensus for various reasons. Since this guy plays at my local FLGS I wanted to be prepared if I see him in a local tournament.

As there are no rules permitting embarking a unit across multiple transports, you cannot. No amount of word twisting will permit it.

The rules are clear.

Specifically because of this wording:

" If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport"
(Note it says "a friendly transport", so that means one).

"it (The unit) is now embarked inside the transport"

(Note it says "the transport", so that means one).

Yeah, it seems like you've got a conclusion and are trying to make the facts fit it.

You cannot spread one unit across multiple transports.