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.

JubbJubbz wrote:

This makes me think of a related scenario since CoC is being used as a reference. If a Lord shoots a unit out of a rhino hatch killing a character. He turns into spawn, falling out of the rhino. Can he then assault? An extremely unlikely scenario (the shooting a character part, not the turning to spawn part) but seems relevant.

The Rhino isn't an assault vehicle, so I'd say no.

 FlingitNow wrote:

An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.

So an attached IC with infantry type would enable the squad to remain embarked?

RAW game breaks as a rule has been broken with no RAW to fix it.

RaW certainly does not require them to disembark.

Correct, but they can not legally be inside the transport either as they exceed the transports capacity.

At best you have an implied restriction on them being inside vs direct permission for them to be in there.

Actual RAW restriction on them being inside. Where is the "direct permission for them to be in there" because the transport rules do not say that as they exceed the capacity of the transport.

Except of course it is not remotely similar the CoC rule creates a new unit normally resulting in the transport containing two units.

Not at all. A lone character is embarked on a transport, kills another character with shooting and turns into a different model/unit. The Character is removed and replaced with a demon Prince. Where are you getting two units from. the characters is not on the transport anymore.

The CoC rule is also quite unlikely to occur (indeed impossible if embarked on a Landraider) whilst this rule will happen on 1 in 3 turns they are embarked and whilst personally I would have Possessed in a transport I don't see why you feel the need to entirely remove the option from the codex in any sort of viable way.

RAW entirely removes the option of having beasts on a transport, not me.

Do you like playing against the same lists over and over and hate for your opponent to have options in how they build their army?

What does this question have to do with anything we are discussing?

1) You said an infantry unit was a unit that contained infantry models an attached IC would remain infantry and therefore the unit would still be an infantry unit by your definition. So what RaW is broken?

2) That is debatable. We are told they can transport 1 infantry unit we are not told how many beast or other types of unit can be embarked. Not that we really know what an infantry unit is. Hence why it is at best implied. They have direct permission to embark and direct permission to change unit type so the codex rules break your implied restriction on them being in there so what happens when there is a conflict between BrB and Codex?

3) Even with a lone character a new unit is created. The character does not change unit type. Generally characters are most often found in units hence the situation often resulting in 2 distinct units being there.

4) As for RaW removing the option of having beasts in the transport that is simply not true. Here the RaW actually clearly allows them to be in the transport, you believe the implied restriction on non-infantry units means this is an illegal state. Which even if we assume is true the beasts are still in there and making them disembark does not mean that you did not have a unit of beasts in the transport. Your forced disembark is not RaW it is your choice a choice that makes having transports for possessed not viable.

5) Given that your made up house rule removes an option that the codex creates the only reason to do that would he to narrow down the options you play against. Hence the question.

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) You said an infantry unit was a unit that contained infantry models an attached IC would remain infantry and therefore the unit would still be an infantry unit by your definition. So what RaW is broken?

2) That is debatable. We are told they can transport 1 infantry unit we are not told how many beast or other types of unit can be embarked. Not that we really know what an infantry unit is. Hence why it is at best implied. They have direct permission to embark and direct permission to change unit type so the codex rules break your implied restriction on them being in there so what happens when there is a conflict between BrB and Codex?

3) Even with a lone character a new unit is created. The character does not change unit type. Generally characters are most often found in units hence the situation often resulting in 2 distinct units being there.

4) As for RaW removing the option of having beasts in the transport that is simply not true. Here the RaW actually clearly allows them to be in the transport, you believe the implied restriction on non-infantry units means this is an illegal state. Which even if we assume is true the beasts are still in there and making them disembark does not mean that you did not have a unit of beasts in the transport. Your forced disembark is not RaW it is your choice a choice that makes having transports for possessed not viable.

5) Given that your made up house rule removes an option that the codex creates the only reason to do that would he to narrow down the options you play against. Hence the question.

1) if the unit remains infantry and the chr is infantry then it is an infantry unit, correct.

2) no it really is not. A transport's capacity can not be exceeded. a single model with the calvary or beast unit type that is somehow embarked on a transport exceeds its carrying capacity because the transport can not carry their unit type.

3) A infantry character from the CSM Codex that is embarked and gets mutated into a Demon prince is still the same Character, his points remain the same, he just becomes a different unit type and has different rules because of his Champions of Chaos rule.

4) RAW does not allow for Beasts to be in a transport as they exceed the carrying capacity. If we have a unit of beasts that are on a transport the game breaks as this is an Illegal situation that can not be resolved.

5) I don't care what list I play against, as I usually play one of two opponents, have since 6th was released, on a weekly basis, so I see the same list a lot. This does not bother me at all.

1) You said an infantry unit is a unit that contains infantry models. If the possessed become beast but the IC is still an infantry model. By your definition the unit is still an infantry unit.

2) So a model with unit type not infantry exceeds the capacity please provide a quote that cares about the unit type of models in relation to capacity because I can't find it.

3) Now we get to the crux of the problem you haven't read any of the rules in question. Please read them. The CoC is really not turned into a DP. It is not the same unit at all.

4) RaW certainly does allow beasts to be in there, RaW may also disallow this but it certainly allows it. Are you claiming that possessed don't roll when embarked now? They certainly do. Following RaW can most certainly lead you to having beasts embarked on a transport. Your bizarre claim that it doesn't just further highlights that you haven't read the relevant rules. Please do so if you want to contribute to the debate.

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) You said an infantry unit is a unit that contains infantry models. If the possessed become beast but the IC is still an infantry model. By your definition the unit is still an infantry unit.

That is not quite what I said. Please re-read what I wrote.

2) So a model with unit type not infantry exceeds the capacity please provide a quote that cares about the unit type of models in relation to capacity because I can't find it.

It has been posted, but I will post it again for your convenience.

Main rulebook, page 78, Transport Capacity wrote:
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity."

(Emphasis mine)
There is where it says what a transport can carry. and this capacity "can never be exceeded" Beasts exceed this capacity as there are no rules allowing them to be on the transport. thus they have exceeded its capacity because the transport can hold exactly zero beasts models. remember that "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded." by putting a single beast in a transport its capacity of zero beasts has been exceeded.

3) Now we get to the crux of the problem you haven't read any of the rules in question. Please read them. The CoC is really not turned into a DP. It is not the same unit at all.

The COC is turned into a DP. Here is proof:
Page 29 C: CSM "The Champion only counts as killed once the [Demon Prince] is removed as a casualty" If they were a different unit you would get a VP for an IC the instant a new unit was created, but you do not so it must be the same unit with different rules.

You might want to follow your own advice on this one and re-read the rules in question.

4) RaW certainly does allow beasts to be in there, RaW may also disallow this but it certainly allows it.

Please cite the rules that allow beasts to ride in a transport. Also, can't trumps must in a permissive ruleset unless there is a specific exception. Beasts do not have a specific exception for being embarked in a transport.

Are you claiming that possessed don't roll when embarked now?

What? I never said such a thing.

They certainly do.

Of course they roll as we are told to roll and nothing restricts this when embarked.

Following RaW can most certainly lead you to having beasts embarked on a transport.

The RAW can lead to having Beasts embarked, but the RAW also says this is Illegal and as such the game breaks as we are not told how to handle this situation.

Your bizarre claim that it doesn't just further highlights that you haven't read the relevant rules. Please do so if you want to contribute to the debate.

I actually have to ask this of you, as clearly I have read the relevant rules, and even quoted them.

Also I never said the RAW does not lead you to having beasts embarked, please retract.

I did state that beasts being embarked is certainly Illegal, and against RAW.

DeathReaper wrote: An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.

1) So here you state that a mixed unit is still an infantry unit. So with the IC attached the unit would still be an infantry unit.

2) Note how that capacity is about units not models so as long as there is no more than 1 infantry unit (plus attached ICs) that capacity has not been exceeded. As fir the can never be exceeded that is talking about passengers which isn't a defined game term so we go to the normal English definition which would make that about models not units. See how much of a mess that rule is yet? That rule you are desperately clinging to doesn't really tell us much we can actually use without making up extra rules. You've chosen to make up rules about beast models where the rule about unit types only talks about units (which don't have unit types).

3) I will point you to "The champion is now a separate, unengaged, non-scoring unit".

4) So we now agree that RaW does allow them to be in there. You claim this also creates an illegal situation which is fine. No fewer rules, even in your interpretation, are broken by forcing the disembark than by allowing them to remain on board. All it does is take an option out of the codex. I just wonder why make that choice?

 FlingitNow wrote:

DeathReaper wrote: An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.

1) So here you state that a mixed unit is still an infantry unit. So with the IC attached the unit would still be an infantry unit.

It would be both, and follow the rules for both.

2) Note how that capacity is about units not models so as long as there is no more than 1 infantry unit (plus attached ICs) that capacity has not been exceeded. As fir the can never be exceeded that is talking about passengers which isn't a defined game term so we go to the normal English definition which would make that about models not units. See how much of a mess that rule is yet? That rule you are desperately clinging to doesn't really tell us much we can actually use without making up extra rules. You've chosen to make up rules about beast models where the rule about unit types only talks about units (which don't have unit types).

Irrelevant. Models make up units.

3) I will point you to "The champion is now a separate, unengaged, non-scoring unit".

You remove the champion from the unit he was previously with if any. that is all that line means.

4) So we now agree that RaW does allow them to be in there.

No, the RAW disallows them from being there. unless you have a rules quote that says they can be there. The rules force them to be there, but that is not the same thing as allowing them to be there. Please understand the difference.

You claim this also creates an illegal situation which is fine. No fewer rules, even in your interpretation, are broken by forcing the disembark than by allowing them to remain on board. All it does is take an option out of the codex. I just wonder why make that choice?

It creates an illegal situation with no way to resolve, thus the game breaks as rules have been broken.

My HIWPI has precedent and we have to strive to correct the rule breakage of the Illegal state of beasts being embarked before the game can continue. The only way to do this is to follow precedent and use the COC rule in regards to transports.

1) so you agree now an IC allows them to remain as they are still an infantry unit?

2) just saying something is irrelevant doesn't make it so. Though your inability to deal with the points raised illustrates the strength of your argument.

3) he is a separate unit that is what the line tells us. He's also unengaged where the previous model could have been engaged which kind of illustrates it is a new separate unit. If the Possessed are engaged as roll up beasts they remain engaged as the unit nor the models are removed unlike CoC.

4) force is a subset of allow. If the rules force something they allow it by definition.

5) there is no precedent for this we have a situation that a cidex creates that (debatably) the BrB prohibits. If only there was a pre-defined way of dealing with a codex vs BrB cobflict...

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) so you agree now an IC allows them to remain as they are still an infantry unit?

Where did I say that? No they can not remain as they are an infantry and a beasts unit. the beasyts can not be embarked, as they are breaking a rule by being embarked.

2) just saying something is irrelevant doesn't make it so. Though your inability to deal with the points raised illustrates the strength of your argument.

Except your point was irrelevant because models make up units. Without models you can not group them into units.

3) he is a separate unit that is what the line tells us. He's also unengaged where the previous model could have been engaged which kind of illustrates it is a new separate unit. If the Possessed are engaged as roll up beasts they remain engaged as the unit nor the models are removed unlike CoC.

He is the same unit, you are misreading the sentence. We know he is the same unit (Note he has a different unit type) because the enemy will only get VP's after the Daemon is killed.

4) force is a subset of allow. If the rules force something they allow it by definition.

Not at all. the rules do not allow (This means legally allow) the unit to be embarked.

5) there is no precedent for this we have a situation that a cidex[sic] creates that (debatably)[sic] the BrB prohibits. If only there was a pre-defined way of dealing with a codex vs BrB cobflict[sic]...

The codex does not legally allow the Beasts to be embarked, therefore your codex vs BrB conflict is irrelevant...

1) is the unit 2 units then? No it is a single unit that is an infantry unit. By your definition of infantry unit.

2) Please point out where I stated a unit was not made up of models? I didn't. I'll take this response as you conceeding the point.

3) We know it is not the same unit as it is nit engaged even if the previous unit was. The fact we have an exception to the normal VP rules further highlights this.

4) The rules do allow this situation to occur by forcing it to occur. Following the rules can lead to this situation. That is absolute fact any further denial of that fact will be taken as you conceding the point.

5) So we agree that the restriction on them being in their is implied at best as the terms used don't have a definable in game effect. We know that the rules in the codex allow them to be in their. So why make up our own rules rather than just follow what GW has told us to do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe this will help answer these 3 questions:

A) Does following the rules in the codex result in the situation occurring?

B) Does the situation break a BrB rule?

C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules?

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) is the unit 2 units then? No it is a single unit that is an infantry unit. By your definition of infantry unit.

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote before...

2) Please point out where I stated a unit was not made up of models? I didn't. I'll take this response as you conceeding the point.

My point that your point was irrelevant still holds true.

3) We know it is not the same unit as it is nit engaged even if the previous unit was. The fact we have an exception to the normal VP rules further highlights this.

Incorrect, as it can't be a different unit since you would get a VP for the old and new unit if it were two different units. but you don't so it isn't.

4) The rules do allow this situation to occur by forcing it to occur. Following the rules can lead to this situation. That is absolute fact any further denial of that fact will be taken as you conceding the point.

The rules do not legally allow a unit of beasts to be embarked on a transport as this breaks a rule it has to be an illegal allowance.

5) So we agree that the restriction on them being in their is implied at best as the terms used don't have a definable in game effect. We know that the rules in the codex allow them to be in their. So why make up our own rules rather than just follow what GW has told us to do?

The Codex rules do not legally allow them to be there.

By forcing them there the rules break other rules and as such we have an illegal allowance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are we in agreement that Beasts are not allowed to be embarked on a transport?

Fling, DR is claiming that since the unit has both Infantry and Beasts, it is both an Infantry unit and a Beasts unit. As an Infantry unit it can be embarked, as a Beasts unit it cannot.


The problem is the rules refer to "X" units but never defines it.

I don't think that whether beasts are allowed to be embarked on transports is relevant and I don't see a rule that in general allows it or a restriction on it. Thus you'd need some permissions that resulted in beasts being embarked to allow them to be embarked.

You probably missed my 3 questions so here they are again. Hopefully answering them will help you understand the rules:

A) Does following the rules in the codex result in the situation occurring? 

B) Does the situation break a BrB rule? 

C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote: The problem is the rules refer to "X" units but never defines it.

A point I keep making to DeathReaper that he unfortunately is incapable of understanding. Hopefully reading it from someone else will help him understand.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't think that whether beasts are allowed to be embarked on transports is relevant and I don't see a rule that in general allows it or a restriction on it.

I quoted the rule that restricts beasts from being embarked before, but ill quote it again.

"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded." (78)

This capacity can never be exceeded.

"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)

Transports have an allowance to carry Infantry, and only Infantry, barring specific exception (like the rules for the Stormraven etc). They are never allowed to carry beasts (barring specific exception).

One Beast model exceeds the transport capacity as the transport capacity is Zero beasts (As in they are not allowed on the transport at all).

 FlingitNow wrote:
C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules?

Do you really believe that is how that works?

If so I can see why you are confused.

"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)

Transports have an allowance to carry Infantry, and only Infantry, barring specific exception (like the rules for the Stormraven etc). They are never allowed to carry beasts (barring specific exception).

Did you even read the quote you posted? Because it does not say what you go on to claim. Unit type infantry is a property of models not units. You have permission to carry a single infantry unit. A unit (by your definition not mine nor the BrB's) a unit that contains any infantry models is an infantry unit so does not exceed this capacity. To be honest though there is a strong argument that the quote is fluff text because it has no in game effect (an infantry unit has no meaning in game, however that is a dark path as GW repeatedly use such terminology without ever telling us what it means).

So you refuse to answer the 3 questions. Your concession is accepted.

 FlingitNow wrote:

"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)

Transports have an allowance to carry Infantry, and only Infantry, barring specific exception (like the rules for the Stormraven etc). They are never allowed to carry beasts (barring specific exception).

Did you even read the quote you posted? Because it does not say what you go on to claim. Unit type infantry is a property of models not units. You have permission to carry a single infantry unit. A unit (by your definition not mine nor the BrB's) a unit that contains any infantry models is an infantry unit so does not exceed this capacity. To be honest though there is a strong argument that the quote is fluff text because it has no in game effect (an infantry unit has no meaning in game, however that is a dark path as GW repeatedly use such terminology without ever telling us what it means).

So you refuse to answer the 3 questions. Your concession is accepted.

(Emphasis mine) As for the underlined, that is not what I said, please read my posts more carefully.

Did you read the quote I posted? It says a transport can hold infantry. Being in a permissive ruleset means that it can not hold any other unit type than infantry unless specifically noted. It does not say it can carry beasts, therefore it can not carry beasts. If you have a unit that has some models with the beasts type and some models with the infantry type. they can not be on a transport because some of the unit can not embark. and we know this from the following rule:

"The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is - a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports." (78)

A unit can not be partially embarked. Any models with the Beast unit type can not embark, or be embarked, as models with the beasts unit type exceed the capacity of the transport as the transport can hold zero models with the Beast unit type.

Here are your question answers.

A) Does following the rules in the codex result in the situation occurring? (Yes, Illegally as it has no specific exception to the normal rules as such they are not in conflict).

B) Does the situation break a BrB rule? (Yes, and the rules for possessed have no specific exception to the normal rules as such they are not in conflict).

C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules? (That is not how conflicting rules work. The Chaos Codex does not say that beasts may be embarked on a transport, therefore there is no conflict within the two rules).

A conflict in rules would be the Stormraven stating that if the Stormraven moves over 6 inches the passengers may still disembark. normally if you move over 6 inches you can not disembark. This is a rule conflict as the codex specifically says you can disembark Vs. the BRB that says you can not disembark. Please understand this.

 FlingitNow wrote:

"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)

Transports have an allowance to carry Infantry, and only Infantry, barring specific exception (like the rules for the Stormraven etc). They are never allowed to carry beasts (barring specific exception).

Did you even read the quote you posted? Because it does not say what you go on to claim. Unit type infantry is a property of models not units. You have permission to carry a single infantry unit. A unit (by your definition not mine nor the BrB's) a unit that contains any infantry models is an infantry unit so does not exceed this capacity. To be honest though there is a strong argument that the quote is fluff text because it has no in game effect (an infantry unit has no meaning in game, however that is a dark path as GW repeatedly use such terminology without ever telling us what it means).

So you refuse to answer the 3 questions. Your concession is accepted.

I believe all models in a unit need to have the 'Infantry' type to be an 'Infantry unit' in this context. GW never explicitly states this but it is evident for a couple reasons.
1. Each time the word "Infantry" is used in that quote from the BrB it is done so with a capital 'I' implying that it means more than just the basic English definition of the word 'infantry'. They are referring to the 'Infantry' unit type listed on each model's profile. Therefore it is not fluff.
2. The rule then mentions that ICs are also allowed on a transport but that they must also be 'Infantry'... meaning they have the 'Infantry' rule in their profile. This implies (though it isn't plainly stated) that every model in a transport must be an 'Infantry' type.

Since none of this is clearly stated, RaW is unclear.
This means that they probably didn't think about their choice of giving Possessed the option of a transport while at the same time allowing them to turn into a Beast while inside. It is sloppy rule writing. The RAW is that it shouldn't have been written this way, so continuing to argue RAW is pointless. The RAI is also debatable because it seems odd that they would allow Possessed to have transports with a high chance of breaking the rules every time they turn into Beasts.
My guess is they did not realize that removing the 'Infantry' unit type would disallow them to be in the transport. So I'd play it as allowing them to remain inside the transport because fluff-wise their physical size doesn't change. Then you'd have to house-rule how they disembark and no other rules need to be broken.
Another logical way to play it is to use the rules for when a champion turns into a daemon since that also doesn't break any rules, but it also makes the option for taking a Rhino with Possessed pointless. That is the only reason I'd hesitate to use this house-rule.

In the end... you'll have to house-rule it.

C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules? (That is not how conflicting rules work. The Chaos Codex does not say that beasts may be embarked on a transport, therefore there is no conflict within the two rules).

A conflict in rules would be the Stormraven stating that if the Stormraven moves over 6 inches the passengers may still disembark. normally if you move over 6 inches you can not disembark. This is a rule conflict as the codex specifically says you can disembark Vs. theBRB that says you can not disembark. Please understand this.

So first you're claiming that when a rule forces you to break another rule it is not a rules conflict. Then you are confysing specific vs general with any other rules conflict. A rules conflict is when 1 rule either allows or forces you to break another rule. In general specific over rules general so if one specifically mentions the other rule or situation it wins. This is true for any permissive ruleset. However in 40k we have another trump card where codex trumps rulebook but does not need to be more specific than it. Please understand that a rule that causes you to break another rule is in conflict with that rule.

As for your comment about infantry unit types please read the rule you quoted. It makes literally no mention of model unit types. It puts no restrictions at all on what type of models can be embarked.

A unit is just a group of models.

"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." (3)

"Tarriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups...In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together..." (3)

A conflict in rules would be the Stormraven stating that if the Stormraven moves over 6 inches the passengers may still disembark. normally if you move over 6 inches you can not disembark. This is a rule conflict as the codex specifically says you can disembark Vs. theBRB that says you can not disembark. Please understand this.

Note how the chaos codex does not tell you that you can have beasts embarked upon a transport therefore it is not a rules conflict because beasts still may not be embarked on a transport because the Codex does not say that they can be. If it said that a particular transport could carry beasts that would be a rules conflict because the normal transports can not carry beasts. But it does not say that beasts can be embarked, so they cant.

A rules conflict is when 1 rule either allows or forces you to break another rule

Sort of. A rules conflict is when one rule specifically allows you to break another rule.

The situation we have in the chaos codex is illegal as there is no specific exception or allowance for beasts to be embarked.

However in 40k we have another trump card where codex trumps rulebook but does not need to be more specific than it. .

Here is the issue. you did not read page 7

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

Read the Stormraven situation above about a conflict.

There is no conflict in the Chaos book about Beasts riding on a transport as the rules in the Codex does not allow beasts on a transport, just like the BRB. There is no rule stating that beasts can be embarked on a transport, therefore there is no conflicting rule and page 7 does not apply.

Fling and DeathReaper. What are your current positions on the rule? As it stands I am thinking that I need to house-rule this for my own use because there isn't a RAW solution. But where do the two of you disagree?

You both agree that RAW a unit of Beasts are not allowed to embark on a transport. right?

You both agree that RAW a unit of Possessed can find themselves in a situation where they are Beasts on a transport... which is something the rules do not account for. right?

Since the rules do not present a way to deal with this situation (a rules paradox?) then the only way to resolve it is to create a house-rule. right?

So what are you two arguing about again? The difference between a rule breaking another rule vs an illegal game-state?

Zimko you have summed up the argument. The rules give us a solution which is also the most likely RaI, but DeathReaper has a vendetta against Chaos players using transports so has unnecessarily created his own house rule and is presenting as precedent.

Zimko wrote:
Fling and DeathReaper. What are your current positions on the rule? The game breaks as the beasts are embarked and legally they can not be, and the rules do not tell us how to fix this situation.

As it stands I am thinking that I need to house-rule this for my own use because there isn't a RAW solution. But where do the two of you disagree? I say it is illegal he says its legal via page 7 codex trumps brb, but he failed to take into account the "when there is a conflict" part of page 7

You both agree that RAW a unit of Beasts are not allowed to embark on a transport. right? Correct, there is nothing in any rules that allow beasts on a normal transport (With the exception of Superheavy vehicles etc).

You both agree that RAW a unit of Possessed can find themselves in a situation where they are Beasts on a transport... which is something the rules do not account for. right? Correct, there is nothing in any rules that allow beasts on a normal transport (Barring superheavy vehicles etc). The rules are broken with no way to fix the situation in the RAW.

Since the rules do not present a way to deal with this situation (a rules paradox?) then the only way to resolve it is to create a house-rule. right? Correct.

(Emphasis mine, I added the red text to the quote).

So what are you two arguing about again? The difference between a rule breaking another rule vs an illegal game-state?

Codex trumps BRB when there is a conflict is what was being debated but fling has not shown where there is a conflict as the chaos codex does not specifically allow beasts to embark on a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Zimko you have summed up the argument. The rules give us a solution which is also the most likely RaI,

No the rules do not give us a solution.

but DeathReaper has a vendetta against Chaos players using transports so has unnecessarily created his own house rule and is presenting as precedent.

Wow, personal attacks that gives your stance even more credibility!

Wait, no that has the opposite effect. Thank you for the debate and concession, that is all I needed I am done here.

Lol, it sounds like you both agree on making a house-rule, but can not agree on which house-rule to use.

In that case... carry on!

I'll just talk to my TO before-hand if this comes up and let them decide. But right now I'm swaying towards allowing them to remain on-board the transport because if the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.

Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.

Zimko wrote:
I'll just talk to my TO before-hand if this comes up and let them decide. But right now I'm swaying towards allowing them to remain on-board the transport because if the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.

Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.

They probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault as well right?

Because if the rule-writers had intended them to to shoot or assault in a game, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so for models without eyes like they did for vehicles.

Since they didn't, they probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault anything.

The RAI is impossible to determine as we have no idea what the writers intended when they wrote the rules. We only have the RAW reading of the rules to go by. I doubt it was intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault, but you never know because we do not know what the writers intended when they wrote the rules.

The rule writer's intentions are as illusive as any person you have not directly talked to, even more so when filtered through an ediotr. However, using an understanding of game design, you can make recommendations with an educated opinion on how best to band-aid broken rules until they are properly addressed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zimko wrote:
I'll just talk to my TO before-hand if this comes up and let them decide. But right now I'm swaying towards allowing them to remain on-board the transport because if the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.

Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.

They probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault as well right?

Because if the rule-writers had intended them to to shoot or assault in a game, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so for models without eyes like they did for vehicles.

Since they didn't, they probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault anything.

The RAI is impossible to determine as we have no idea what the writers intended when they wrote the rules. We only have the RAW reading of the rules to go by. I doubt it was intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault, but you never know because we do not know what the writers intended when they wrote the rules.

I have to disagree with everything written here. I know exactly what the design team meant by the LoS rules and how they apply to models without eyes. I've never met anyone that didn't. It is really very possible to know RaI in a lot of situations.

Granted for this rule the RaI is not as clear as for say LoS for eyeless models or Grav Weapons and invulnerable/cover saves. But one of tge other options the possessed can roll gives their transport shrouded which implies that they are intended to use transports and at best the must get out crowd have RaW is broken. So the solution serms obvious to me.

As for knowing RaW the minute DeathReaper proves 100% that we qre not all hallucinating as to what is written then I'll agree RaW us knowable and RaI isn't. No RaW fundamentalist has ever been able to prove that yet. But given DeathReaper's post above he must be able to ir he has to retract that statement.

I know this doesn't fit here too well (per tenets), but for the RaI of this, i would go with yes they stay embarked.

As for reason why?
Angel Exterminatus: The possessed or "creatures" made by Fabius disembark from the Dreadclaw i think it was? so they are "embarked".
aaaand i'm out =P

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zimko wrote:
I'll just talk to my TO before-hand if this comes up and let them decide. But right now I'm swaying towards allowing them to remain on-board the transport because if the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.

Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.

They probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault as well right?

Because if the rule-writers had intended them to to shoot or assault in a game, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so for models without eyes like they did for vehicles.

Since they didn't, they probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault anything.

The RAI is impossible to determine as we have no idea what the writers intended when they wrote the rules. We only have the RAW reading of the rules to go by. I doubt it was intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault, but you never know because we do not know what the writers intended when they wrote the rules.

No, I don't believe that RAI they wanted models without eyes to not be able to use LoS to shoot since they give you the option to give guns to beings that don't have eyes. They give you the option to give transports to Possessed, so following the same logic I believe RAI they do not mean for Possessed to automatically disembark when they turn into Beasts.

I can't read their minds so RAI is subjective. But my proposed RAI does not commit any logical fallacies.

Zimko wrote:
No, I don't believe that RAI they wanted models without eyes to not be able to use LoS to shoot since they give you the option to give guns to beings that don't have eyes.

This goes against what you said previously.

I mean if

Zimko wrote:
...the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.

Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.

So if the rule-writers had intended for models without eyes to be able to shoot they would have wrote an exception into the rules like they did for vehicles.

Of course then you say this

I can't read their minds so RAI is subjective.

Which of course is 100% true, so we must go by the RAW since RAI is impossible to determine.

In this case the RAW is broke and the game breaks, so we have to come up with a house rule to fix the situation either way by allowing them to stay embarked (House rule) or forcing them to disembark just like the CoC rules do for a DP that is embarked (House rule with established precedent)

For uniformness Ill go with the forcing them to disembark because it is a similar situation to a Champion of Chaos getting the Demon Prince boon on the table.