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.

 grendel083 wrote:
But you have used it.
The unit was outside, now they have embarked.
Other than starting embarked, the only way to embark is to embark.

I disagree. The models were placed outside during deployment. They are now placed inside. By RAW, embarking or disembarking can only occur as part of movement and Scout is a deployment, not a movement. If Scout were a movement, all other movement phases restrictions and benefits would apply (difficult/dangerous terrain, Jinx cover saves, etc.). Look at the rules for embarking/disembarking, they state that they specifically occur during the movement phase.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
But you have used it.
The unit was outside, now they have embarked.
Other than starting embarked, the only way to embark is to embark.

I disagree. The models were placed outside during deployment. They are now placed inside. By RAW, embarking or disembarking can only occur as part of movement and Scout is a deployment, not a movement. If Scout were a movement, all other movement phases restrictions and benefits would apply (difficult/dangerous terrain, Jinx cover saves, etc.). Look at the rules for embarking/disembarking, they state that they specifically occur during the movement phase.

Look at the deployment rules - you have permission to embark during deployment (for transport vehicles). The only way to be inside a fortification is to embark.
The question becomes does the permission granted in the deployment rules override the Scout denial. I'd say no.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
But you have used it.
The unit was outside, now they have embarked.
Other than starting embarked, the only way to embark is to embark.

I disagree. The models were placed outside during deployment. They are now placed inside. By RAW, embarking or disembarking can only occur as part of movement and Scout is a deployment, not a movement. If Scout were a movement, all other movement phases restrictions and benefits would apply (difficult/dangerous terrain, Jinx cover saves, etc.). Look at the rules for embarking/disembarking, they state that they specifically occur during the movement phase.

Look at the deployment rules - you have permission to embark during deployment (for transport vehicles). The only way to be inside a fortification is to embark.
The question becomes does the permission granted in the deployment rules override the Scout denial. I'd say no.

Page 121: "if a fortification is within 12" of the center line, only friendly units that have the Infiltrate or Scouts special rule can (re)deploy within the building, regardless of the proximity of enemy units."

New evidence submitted now that I could get to my BRB. Clearly you can scout into a building since it is explicitly granted by RAW.

EDIT: Clearly Rigeld knew this all along since he is so much more familiar with the rules than I am. Point is, very few people can have all 100+ pages of base rules memorized verbatim. Don't stoop to discrediting people if you can end up proven wrong.

PanzerLeader wrote:

Fragile wrote:
How have you violated RAW. You embarked into a building which the Scout rule says you cannot do. IF the unit was not in a building / vehicle, you cannot put it in one with a Scout redeploy.

Except I didn't use the embark mechanic. The Scout redeployment is not a move and specifically prohibits units from using the movement mechanics of embark/disembark. You do not roll for terrain as part of the Scout redeployment nor do you take dangerous terrain checks or follow any of the other normal movement rules because it is not a move, it is a deployment.

If all models in a unit are completely within 6" of all parts of the bastion, by strict RAW you can use the Scout redeployment to put them inside or on top of that piece of terrain without using the embark mechanic. Why? Because all models are completely within six of their starting location, you have not actually used the embark mechanic to gain 2" of free movement and they are placed inside a piece of terrain they can legally deploy into.

Granted, this is a very specific situation and you essentially have to plan your deployment around it by placing the bastion on the edge of your deployment zone and stacking the scouting unit right next to it.

Edit: Here is the crux of the argument. When you deploy a unit into a bastion during normal deployment, is it placed inside the bastion or embarked into the bastion? If you say embarked, thats fine, but I would like to see how you actually use the embark mechanic to start a unit in a piece of terrain.

Except you did. There is no movement that lets you get into a vehicle or building. The only way into a vehicle or building is to embark. The "redeployment" will not let you deploy into the building that you could normally legally deploy in because the Scout rule makes it clear that you cannot.

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
But you have used it.
The unit was outside, now they have embarked.
Other than starting embarked, the only way to embark is to embark.

I disagree. The models were placed outside during deployment. They are now placed inside. By RAW, embarking or disembarking can only occur as part of movement and Scout is a deployment, not a movement. If Scout were a movement, all other movement phases restrictions and benefits would apply (difficult/dangerous terrain, Jinx cover saves, etc.). Look at the rules for embarking/disembarking, they state that they specifically occur during the movement phase.

Look at the deployment rules - you have permission to embark during deployment (for transport vehicles). The only way to be inside a fortification is to embark.
The question becomes does the permission granted in the deployment rules override the Scout denial. I'd say no.

Page 121: "if a fortification is within 12" of the center line, only friendly units that have the Infiltrate or Scouts special rule can (re)deploy within the building, regardless of the proximity of enemy units."

New evidence submitted now that I could get to my BRB. Clearly you can scout into a building since it is explicitly granted by RAW.

EDIT: Clearly Rigeld knew this all along since he is so much more familiar with the rules than I am. Point is, very few people can have all 100+ pages of base rules memorized verbatim. Don't stoop to discrediting people if you can end up proven wrong.

I quoted, verbatim, the denial in the Scout rule. The Scout rule is more specific (since it deals only with Scout) than the deployment rules.
I'm not wrong. And it helps when discussing rules and making assertions to actually have your rulebook handy.
BTW, I bolded the sentence that shows I already addressed the quote you posted. Because yes - I was aware of it.
And it's still embarking.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
But you have used it.
The unit was outside, now they have embarked.
Other than starting embarked, the only way to embark is to embark.

I disagree. The models were placed outside during deployment. They are now placed inside. By RAW, embarking or disembarking can only occur as part of movement and Scout is a deployment, not a movement. If Scout were a movement, all other movement phases restrictions and benefits would apply (difficult/dangerous terrain, Jinx cover saves, etc.). Look at the rules for embarking/disembarking, they state that they specifically occur during the movement phase.

Look at the deployment rules - you have permission to embark during deployment (for transport vehicles). The only way to be inside a fortification is to embark.
The question becomes does the permission granted in the deployment rules override the Scout denial. I'd say no.

Page 121: "if a fortification is within 12" of the center line, only friendly units that have the Infiltrate or Scouts special rule can (re)deploy within the building, regardless of the proximity of enemy units."

New evidence submitted now that I could get to my BRB. Clearly you can scout into a building since it is explicitly granted by RAW.

EDIT: Clearly Rigeld knew this all along since he is so much more familiar with the rules than I am. Point is, very few people can have all 100+ pages of base rules memorized verbatim. Don't stoop to discrediting people if you can end up proven wrong.

I quoted, verbatim, the denial in the Scout rule. The Scout rule is more specific (since it deals only with Scout) than the deployment rules.
I'm not wrong. And it helps when discussing rules and making assertions to actually have your rulebook handy.
BTW, I bolded the sentence that shows I already addressed the quote you posted. Because yes - I was aware of it.
And it's still embarking.

The deployment rule is more specific in this case because the entire section deals explicitly with deploying inside fortifications. And it gives you explicit permission to scout into a friendly fortification and explicitly prohibits you from scouting into an enemy one.

Why would you think that they added that restriction in the Scout rule, when you can simply just "redeploy" into the transport according to you.

Why would they state Scout's can (re)deploy into friendly fortifications if they didn't mean for it to be specific permission to do so, over-turning the more general restriction of not being able to embark period?

Fragile wrote:
Why would you think that they added that restriction in the Scout rule, when you can simply just "redeploy" into the transport according to you.

I've never claimed that. I've also provided a specific quote allowing scout moves into bastions, per the original question.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
He can rule that sure.
But in a discussion about *rules* in a *rules* forum where we discuss *rules* as they're written (unless you state otherwise), to make the statement he did, as a TO, is silly.

You called him out as a "TO". Next time don't and we won't have an issue

Yes because, as a TO, he should be familiar with the rules.
You're the one with an "issue" - your response wasn't warranted nor accurate.
I'd call anyone out on being incorrect but when someone is supposed to be familiar with the rules, is told that there's a specific exception, and then continues to argue his point apparently without looking up the rule in question I'll bring up the fact that he's supposed to be familiar with the rules.

A TO is familiar with the rules.....
I don't think you should call out TO's..... You are the only person I know playing in a small group that rules you roll to hit with PS then disregard that roll........................................

Again TS, you can't get up there with scout!

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
But you have used it.
The unit was outside, now they have embarked.
Other than starting embarked, the only way to embark is to embark.

I disagree. The models were placed outside during deployment. They are now placed inside. By RAW, embarking or disembarking can only occur as part of movement and Scout is a deployment, not a movement. If Scout were a movement, all other movement phases restrictions and benefits would apply (difficult/dangerous terrain, Jinx cover saves, etc.). Look at the rules for embarking/disembarking, they state that they specifically occur during the movement phase.

Look at the deployment rules - you have permission to embark during deployment (for transport vehicles). The only way to be inside a fortification is to embark.
The question becomes does the permission granted in the deployment rules override the Scout denial. I'd say no.

Page 121: "if a fortification is within 12" of the center line, only friendly units that have the Infiltrate or Scouts special rule can (re)deploy within the building, regardless of the proximity of enemy units."

New evidence submitted now that I could get to my BRB. Clearly you can scout into a building since it is explicitly granted by RAW.

EDIT: Clearly Rigeld knew this all along since he is so much more familiar with the rules than I am. Point is, very few people can have all 100+ pages of base rules memorized verbatim. Don't stoop to discrediting people if you can end up proven wrong.

I quoted, verbatim, the denial in the Scout rule. The Scout rule is more specific (since it deals only with Scout) than the deployment rules.
I'm not wrong. And it helps when discussing rules and making assertions to actually have your rulebook handy.
BTW, I bolded the sentence that shows I already addressed the quote you posted. Because yes - I was aware of it.
And it's still embarking.

The deployment rule is more specific in this case because the entire section deals explicitly with deploying inside fortifications. And it gives you explicit permission to scout into a friendly fortification and explicitly prohibits you from scouting into an enemy one.

When concerning scout redeployment, which is more specific - the Scout USR or the general deployment rules?

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
But you have used it.
The unit was outside, now they have embarked.
Other than starting embarked, the only way to embark is to embark.

I disagree. The models were placed outside during deployment. They are now placed inside. By RAW, embarking or disembarking can only occur as part of movement and Scout is a deployment, not a movement. If Scout were a movement, all other movement phases restrictions and benefits would apply (difficult/dangerous terrain, Jinx cover saves, etc.). Look at the rules for embarking/disembarking, they state that they specifically occur during the movement phase.

Look at the deployment rules - you have permission to embark during deployment (for transport vehicles). The only way to be inside a fortification is to embark.
The question becomes does the permission granted in the deployment rules override the Scout denial. I'd say no.

Page 121: "if a fortification is within 12" of the center line, only friendly units that have the Infiltrate or Scouts special rule can (re)deploy within the building, regardless of the proximity of enemy units."

New evidence submitted now that I could get to my BRB. Clearly you can scout into a building since it is explicitly granted by RAW.

EDIT: Clearly Rigeld knew this all along since he is so much more familiar with the rules than I am. Point is, very few people can have all 100+ pages of base rules memorized verbatim. Don't stoop to discrediting people if you can end up proven wrong.

I quoted, verbatim, the denial in the Scout rule. The Scout rule is more specific (since it deals only with Scout) than the deployment rules.
I'm not wrong. And it helps when discussing rules and making assertions to actually have your rulebook handy.
BTW, I bolded the sentence that shows I already addressed the quote you posted. Because yes - I was aware of it.
And it's still embarking.

The deployment rule is more specific in this case because the entire section deals explicitly with deploying inside fortifications. And it gives you explicit permission to scout into a friendly fortification and explicitly prohibits you from scouting into an enemy one.

When concerning scout redeployment, which is more specific - the Scout USR or the general deployment rules?

Doesn't the situation overlap specifics when concerning Page 121?

In this situation, the more specific rule is page 121.

This is because the page in question names the Scout and Infiltrator rules, by name, when it grants permission to (re)deploy into certain fortifications. It then goes ahead to lay out very precise restrictions on which fortifications are authorized for this (re)deployment, a list that makes it so only a grand total of one structure will be eligible to embark/deploy into within a non-stronghold game. Further more the Rule granting these permission would also serve no purpose what-so-ever, not even as a reminder because it wouldn't even be accurate, if you allow the Scout Special rule to trump as you require a Special Rule to deploy outside of the deployment zone to start with anyway. There is no sense at all in allowing a restriction, found within a Special Rule, to trump an exception that can only be evoked by having said Special Rule.

This is called a catch 22.

And yes the Scout restriction is more generic as it would deny the following as well as the one exception above:
Friendly fortifications deployed somehow outside of X radius
Fortifications put down as part of terrain
Buildings put down as part of Terrain
Enemy Fortifications
Friendly Transports, particularly other unit's dedicated transports

Probably not a complete list, but I think enough to make you consider this more.

JinxDragon wrote:
In this situation, the more specific rule is page 121.

This is because the page in question names the Scout and Infiltrator rules, by name, when it grants permission to (re)deploy into certain fortifications. It then goes ahead to lay out very precise restrictions on which fortifications are authorized for this (re)deployment, a list that makes it so only a grand total of one structure will be eligible to embark/deploy into within a non-stronghold game. Further more the Rule granting these permission would also serve no purpose what-so-ever, not even as a reminder because it wouldn't even be accurate, if you allow the Scout Special rule to trump as you require a Special Rule to deploy outside of the deployment zone to start with anyway. There is no sense at all in allowing a restriction, found within a Special Rule, to trump an exception that can only be evoked by having said Special Rule.

This is called a catch 22.

And yes the Scout restriction is more generic as it would deny the following as well as the one exception above:
Friendly fortifications deployed somehow outside of X radius
Fortifications put down as part of terrain
Buildings put down as part of Terrain
Enemy Fortifications
Friendly Transports, particularly other unit's dedicated transports

Probably not a complete list, but I think enough to make you consider this more.

Not only do I disagree with you on specificity (such a fun word), you're ignoring the fact that cannot must trump can when there's a conflict. One of the basic underpinnings of a permissive rule set.

Are TOs not allowed to have or ask questions? are they not allowed to discuss rules? Of course they are. That means whether or not someone is a TO has nothing to do with the discussion and making a point to point out that they are one is a blatant attempt to try to insult and belittle them (see site rules #1). I feel that they are addressing the matter is showing that they are doing their job by discussing a rules question that may come up.
Isnt the usual GW answer to "catch 22s" where the rules oppose one another to roll off for it separately for instance?

I have to disagree Rideld2,

If 'can not' always trumped 'can' then it would be impossible for exceptions to exist within the rules. There are examples throughout the Rule Book of an action being restricted except in situations X and Y. For example, the restriction on being able to assault after disembarking can be over-written if you have X or Y special rule stating that you can assault after disembarking. Within that one example a rule specifically states you can do a forbidden act, and one which no one would argue this rule does not trump the restriction banning said act. This is because the rule is an exception, it exists for the sole purpose of providing you permission to do X in a small handful of situations, that would have no purpose if it could not trump a restriction against X.

So I can not simply accept the argument that paragraph which gives you precise instructions on how a Scout, which it addresses by name, is to redeploy into a fortification can be trumped by the scouts general inability to 'embark.' Either the action itself is not embarking, therefore doesn't trigger the restriction, or this page is another example of a specific permission being written to allow an action that would otherwise be banned. That is the only way page 121 can work because it pretty much states, in black and white words, that Scouts can (re)deploy into fortifications so if it wasn't meaning for Scouts to (re)deploy into fortifications then what purpose does it have?

That is a serious question, this page makes zero sense as anything but an exception to the embarking rules. There is no way to wave it away as a 'reminder' because it would be 100% incorrect, seeing it states Scouts can redeploy into a specific fortification. It can not be some sort of instructions on how to deploy initially because it talks about redeploying as well. On top of that, the instructions proved explain how to deploy outside of the deployment zone, which most units can not even begin to dream about doing. It simply holds no purpose at all unless it is instructions on how to (re)deploy a Scout into a fortification as a legal action....

Evil Inc,
While rolling off when you find a conflict in the middle of game is a good way to resolve them without it taking hours of debate, this here is a forum and we have the time to put real thought behind these conflicts. Often when we do, there is an not-so-obvious answer which provides itself and then we can proceed as the writers intended next time the conflict is encountered. In this case I wouldn't say there was a conflict because the idea of 'exception to the restrictions' have long existed in the game, and if we are required to roll off because this one is a 'conflict' then we will be rolling off a lot as all have to be conflicts.

Scouting is not a movement and has not been since the start of 6th. It is a redeployment and therefore you can do anything you could when deploying so long as it is within the range.

 White Ninja wrote:
Scouting is not a movement and has not been since the start of 6th. It is a redeployment and therefore you can do anything you could when deploying so long as it is within the range.

Read. The. Thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
That is a serious question, this page makes zero sense as anything but an exception to the embarking rules. There is no way to wave it away as a 'reminder' because it would be 100% incorrect, seeing it states Scouts can redeploy into a specific fortification. It can not be some sort of instructions on how to deploy initially because it talks about redeploying as well. On top of that, the instructions proved explain how to deploy outside of the deployment zone, which most units can not even begin to dream about doing. It simply holds no purpose at all unless it is instructions on how to (re)deploy a Scout into a fortification as a legal action....

That's fair. I'll concede the point.

rigeld2 wrote:

 White Ninja wrote:
Scouting is not a movement and has not been since the start of 6th. It is a redeployment and therefore you can do anything you could when deploying so long as it is within the range.

Read. The. Thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
That is a serious question, this page makes zero sense as anything but an exception to the embarking rules. There is no way to wave it away as a 'reminder' because it would be 100% incorrect, seeing it states Scouts can redeploy into a specific fortification. It can not be some sort of instructions on how to deploy initially because it talks about redeploying as well. On top of that, the instructions proved explain how to deploy outside of the deployment zone, which most units can not even begin to dream about doing. It simply holds no purpose at all unless it is instructions on how to (re)deploy a Scout into a fortification as a legal action....

That's fair. I'll concede the point.

So to answer the OP, the consensus is that you can use scout to redeploy into a fortification purchased as part of your army, but not bunkers placed as normal terrain or enemy fortifications, yes? The rules on 121 provide one specific exception to the general scout restrictions.

There is one interesting turn out from this debate though:
If you ever go against one of the 'win at all cost' type opponent that wants to abuse the terrain placement rules, which I will not detail how to do here because it really is disgusting behavior, at least you can force them to deploy their men in the open and hopefully do some damage if you go first. After all, the rule informing us we can deploy into fortification's grants permission to only one type of building and any building placed as terrain is not it. They can't argue they are embarking because the rule they would need to reference for 'general permission to embark into a building,' over the instructions on how to deploy into a fortification, states it can only occur during the players movement stage. Therefore, unless the unit has a special rule allowing them to make a 'pre-game movement including embarking' they are forced to remain out of the building till their first movement phase.

Of course, if you are playing against such a player you have to ask yourself why you are playing against such a player....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PanzerLeader,

I will keep referring to it as 'Building classified as X' because there are quite a few instructions that and posting them all might trigger some Game Workshop anti-piracy bot.

Jinxdragon,the point I was getting at is that on other catch 22, the "official rule" is to roll off each time it comes up. this has even been in the faq. I was suggesting that as it may actually be one of those cases where that is what GW wants you to do or what you are "supposed' to do. Again, as you said, it may not be. I was jus pointing the possibility.

That could be debated but that is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and the purpose of a Rule forum, so let us not bother.

Actually, since it is actually in the FAQ to the rulebook and a possibility that it may actually be the official rule it very much is relevant to the rules forum and this conversation. However, as it is not a possibility that the other members of the discussion want to entertain, there is no need to bother with it beyond the reminder. carry on.