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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p121 wrote:Deploying Transport Vehicles
Units can be deployed in Transport vehicles if you wish - simply declare to your opponent which units are embarked where as part of your deployment.

Units can be deployed in transports. That's their deployment.

and if their transport makes a re-deploy to they go with it or not?

They stay embarked - to change that would be a redeployment.
Since their deployment was to embark the only valid redeployment is to disembark.

The unit inside re-deploys with the transport. Here is the proof (the underlined: )

" If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment)." (41)

They (The unit inside) can't disembark as a part of the re-deployment = They (The unit inside) are re-deploying.

This tells us that the unit inside is certainly re-deploying with the transport but can not disembark.

Not really, it just says that you cannot leave the unit behind and have your crusader scout right up into the enemy's face or scout out of your DT.

Actually, that does seem to prove it.
Embarked units disembark. Transports don't disembark the unit. This does show that the unit inside is redeployed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The unit inside re-deploys with the transport. Here is the proof (the underlined: )

" If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment)." (41)

They (The unit inside) can't disembark as a part of the re-deployment = They (The unit inside) are re-deploying.

This tells us that the unit inside is certainly re-deploying with the transport but can not disembark.

Well, no. It doesn't say that.
It says that the embarked unit cannot choose to disembark after granting the DT Scout.
It does not say that the embarked unit redeploys.

rigeld2 wrote:

p121 wrote:Deploying Transport Vehicles
Units can be deployed in Transport vehicles if you wish - simply declare to your opponent which units are embarked where as part of your deployment.

Units can be deployed in transports. That's their deployment.

Sadly, the language here is ambiguous. I see your POV, but that sentence can be rewritten in two different ways:

1) Units can be deployed into a vehicle (in which case their deployment is into the vehicle)

2) Units can be inside a vehicle when they are deployed onto the table (in which case their deployment is on the table, and they would be redeployed if the transport redeployed)

Given the wording, I see both interpretations as valid.

You're adding words to get the 2nd rewrite - so that'd be an argument of intent.

Part of your deployment is that you're deploying the unit in the Transport. That's literally what the sentence says.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're adding words to get the 2nd rewrite - so that'd be an argument of intent.

Part of your deployment is that you're deploying the unit in the Transport. That's literally what the sentence says.

Notice I added words to get both rewrites. It isn't an argument of intent. The fact is that the use if the word "in" is ambiguous, as is the sentence structure. "Deployed in the vehicle" may mean "Deployed into the vehicle" or "Deployed onto the able while in the vehicle". I am obviously adding words to display both meanings, but they are both valid given the grammar of the rule.

I have no idea where you're getting "onto the table" as being a valid rewrite. If they're embarked they are demonstrably *not* on the table. They can't be since a unit is removed from the table when they embark.

rigeld2 wrote:
I have no idea where you're getting "onto the table" as being a valid rewrite. If they're embarked they are demonstrably *not* on the table. They can't be since a unit is removed from the table when they embark.

OK, Ill take those words out.

"Deployed while in the vehicle"

It still can be read that the act of deploying isn't into the vehicle, but rather they are in a state of being in the vehicle when they are deployed.

You deploy them embarked (the only possible definition of "in" in context).

The vehicle is re-deployed. The embarked unit wasn't redeployed (indeed - cannot be).

would it make a difference, if it said "within" as in deployed within it?

"However, if a unit is a Dedicated Transport, only the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined the unit) can deploy within it."

"in" is used when deploying in a regular transport.

Since this debate is specific to DT's, I thought I would mention it.

"in" and "within" have to mean the same thing in this context - they both mean embarked.

rigeld2 wrote:
"in" and "within" have to mean the same thing in this context - they both mean embarked.

You are starting to make the same mistakes you call other out for. Those words don't "have" to mean anything other than what they mean. Now you are adding your own bias in.

The funny thing is, I'm not even disagreeing with you. I agree that you can read it the way you are reading it. I'm just pointing out that there is another, completely valid, meaning to the same sentence.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"in" and "within" have to mean the same thing in this context - they both mean embarked.

You are starting to make the same mistakes you call other out for. Those words don't "have" to mean anything other than what they mean. Now you are adding your own bias in.

No - there's literally no other way to interpret the sentence. What other definition of "in" or "within" can you possibly use that makes sense within the context of the rules? Physically inside?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The unit inside re-deploys with the transport. Here is the proof (the underlined: )

" If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment)." (41)

They (The unit inside) can't disembark as a part of the re-deployment = They (The unit inside) are re-deploying.

This tells us that the unit inside is certainly re-deploying with the transport but can not disembark.

Well, no. It doesn't say that.
It says that the embarked unit cannot choose to disembark after granting the DT Scout.
It does not say that the embarked unit redeploys.

It tells us that, as a part of the scout redeployment, the unit can not disembark...

Proof given. The unit inside redeploys, but "a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment" (41)

 DeathReaper wrote:
Proof given. The unit inside redeploys, but "a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment" (41)

You've failed to prove the bold - you just keep saying it over and over.
Your quote does not prove the bold.

Why don't you quit trying to game the system in a game with an already fragile ruleset?

I'm sorry that I don't have my rulebook on me so I can't argue the rules whether or not you can charge, but I can argue the grammar of "deployed in transports."

I agree with rigeld2 in the fact that there is only one way to interpret it, but I disagree with his (her?) interpretation.

'In" implies that the subject is already at the location when it preforms that action. So, "deployed in a transport" would say that the unit is already in the transport when it get deployed.

"Into" implies movement. "Deployed into a transport" is how it would need to be phrased if the transport was the location of the unit's deployment.

It reminds me of the Demetri Martin joke: At a party, I learned there was a small, but important, difference between 'peeing in a pool' and 'peeing into a pool.'"

In the scout rule on page 41, it makes reference to units not being able to disembark from a transport (dedicated or otherwise) as part of a scout redeployment.

This implies to me that both the transport and the unit in it are part of the scout redeployment and therefore not able to charge turn 1.

However, from a strict RAW viewpoint, there is certainly a grey area in which to debate.

Just my 2 cents.

Niexist wrote:
Why don't you quit trying to game the system in a game with an already fragile ruleset?

Why don't you learn to read the tenets of YMDC? Here, I'll give you a link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Pro tip: Me arguing a certain way doesn't mean I play that way. The army I play doesn't have vehicles at all and I'm pretty sure doesn't have any scouting units (certainly none that I actually use). I'm not gaming the system, I'm discussing rules.

Toxium wrote:
In the scout rule on page 41, it makes reference to units not being able to disembark from a transport (dedicated or otherwise) as part of a scout redeployment.

This implies to me that both the transport and the unit in it are part of the scout redeployment and therefore not able to charge turn 1.

However, from a strict RAW viewpoint, there is certainly a grey area in which to debate.

Just my 2 cents.

Actually I think it points to the fact that they are not "scout redeploying."
By deployment rules a unit/model with Scout can deploy inside a Transport and also by rule the unit inside CANNOT Scout Redeploy even if it wanted to, because it would require a disembark which is not allowed.
This clearly indicates that the unit inside a transport is barred from redeploying.
The fact that the DT can Scout (due to the Scout rule being conferred to it) is merely a benefit of being a DT and has no bearing on the unit inside.

Just my 2 cents also.

Apparently GW rules-writers haven't learned their lesson yet since the specificity of this rule is so open to rules 'rawyering'... RAW, yeah I think they can actually pull off the first turn assault for the reasons given. Is this all GW's fault for writing vague and obvioulsy exploitable rules? Yep... Should they have caught this in play-testing? Yep... Will it be shut down in an faq? Probably in about 5 years...

Let's take rigeld2's interpretation of the relationship between a unit and it's dedicated transport during deployment a bit further.

A drop pod full of marines deep strikes onto the table near an enemy quad gun. Can the quad gun shoot the marines using Interceptor? or only the pod?

Following your interpretation, then only the DP has arrived from reserve, while the marines inside were just along for the ride and are simply disembarking from their transport.

What do you think?

This follows the same logic that a unit embarked within a transport with the scout rule that makes a scout redeployment is not also redeploying with that transport.

There's a rules specifically saying the marines also count as arriving from reserve (and an FAQ I believe).
A similar rule is missing from Scout and transports.
While I personally agree that the unit also counts as re-deployed, you can't really compare Scout to Reserves in this case.

 grendel083 wrote:
There's a rules specifically saying the marines also count as arriving from reserve (and an FAQ I believe).

I see no wording in the new Space Marine codex saying anything of the sort, nor is there an FAQ

I've always interpreted a situation where a unit confers scout to a vehicle as meaning that they scout with their vehicle.

But I will agree with rigeld2 that it is somewhat ambiguous. It's a situation where the rules fairly clearly intend one thing but leave a blind spot.

Deathreaper's point is interesting, and I need to read it a little closer to decide if his contention is right.

All I'll say is, I wouldn't try it at a tournament, since while RAW might let you do it, a TO would probably RAI that right out.

Also, if I ever play a dude with WS CT and see him plop down land raiders, I'm pulling my guys back a few extra inches. 10 or so inches back from the edge of my deployment zone should be enough (12" scout + 6" LR move + 6" Termie move + 2d6" charge), unless I notice they also somehow have fleet, in which case I'll just pull them back 12".

The Scout rule does not work as there is no unit call “Scouts” as it is written. The rule does not rename the unit that has the rule and there for cannot be redeployed. The RAW says “Scouts must….”, and as far as I see it there is no Scouts unit just units that have the scout rule.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
There's a rules specifically saying the marines also count as arriving from reserve (and an FAQ I believe).

I see no wording in the new Space Marine codex saying anything of the sort, nor is there an FAQ

That was in the previous codex FAQ. Current FAQ does not have it

The closest thing I can find that infers that the unit also Deep Strikes is in the DS rules: ...deep striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark...
If he unit is not deep striking in a transport then they can disembark and move normally.