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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Yes, that is my claim. It is based on the fact that the scouts must be embarked in order to even allow the redeployment. They can move 12" because they are embarked.

I don't see support for assaulting the way the OP wanted. If he went 2nd, then yes.

So you can assault from an assault vehicle that turned up from reserves?

You havent updated to 7th yet. It is now a complete game turn prohibition on charging, if you performed a Scout redeployment.

You are right. We play mostly 6th and reading the rules with a phone is an excercise in futility.

the Scouts are also making a redeployment, and are indisputably Infantry. Explain how Infantry is permitted to make a 12" redeployment when the rules clearly state 6". Page and para.

By being in a transport, the same way they make their move in one. And to repeat, the scouts give their rule to the transport, it would be incapable of scouting without them.

You seem to have a hard time accepting that others can have a different way of interpreting the rules.

Breng77 wrote:
Of note here, if the unit is not redeploying why does the rule here say that it is? If disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment, that implies the unit (which is what would disembark) is redeploying, but is denied the ability to disembark while doing so.

That's an assumption. If you wanted to disembark the Scouts while leaving the vehicle where it was deployed that would be illegal.
It's also a note that the vehicle doesn't disembark the passengers so you can't use the vehicle's redeployment to dump them out.

Before the scout, where is the unit? After the scout where is the unit? Has the unit moved?

Come on, this isn't some computer game where you can frig the move stat using a transport, use some common sense.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Before the scout, where is the unit? After the scout where is the unit? Has the unit moved?

No, the transport moved.

rigeld2 wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
I just did.

No, you demonstrably did not. You showed that if you need to measure to the embarked unit (except for shooting) you measure to the vehicle's hull.
That rule does not say that the models are on the battlefield at all. If they were, why would you measure to the vehicle's hull? Wouldn't you just measure to the models?

Yes, we measure to the hull. It's a game abstraction given that we don't know where any given model is within the transport. Bottom line tho, in that they are in the transport and the transport is on the table. Not like the old days with an Ork Trukk where you actually jammed the models into the back of it and could measure to a given model. Basically, if I can measure to a point on the table for the unit (ie by measuring to the hull), then is that not where the unit is?

But I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

.....

Naw wrote:

the Scouts are also making a redeployment, and are indisputably Infantry. Explain how Infantry is permitted to make a 12" redeployment when the rules clearly state 6". Page and para.

By being in a transport, the same way they make their move in one. And to repeat, the scouts give their rule to the transport, it would be incapable of scouting without them.

You seem to have a hard time accepting that others can have a different way of interpreting the rules.

No, I have no issue with it - when backed with rules. There are some genuinely can-be-read-both-ways rules. There isnt any here though - nothign states the unit is Redeploying, by the rules the unit evoking the rule is the Transport, not the unit inside. It is 100% irrelevant that the vehicle only has the rule because of the unit inside - nothing int eh Scout rule states this.

You claimed it is similar to the unit "making their move" in a transport - this is also wrong. The unit in a transport is moved, they do not move. You cannot refute that. If you are conflating the two that woudl exaplin why you are under the same impression here.

So again, you are claiming a unit is evoking a rule that requires they only move 6", yet you are moving them inside a vehicle 12". Page and para actually allowing this. 7th edition as well, as we are discussing 7th.

 don_mondo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
I just did.

No, you demonstrably did not. You showed that if you need to measure to the embarked unit (except for shooting) you measure to the vehicle's hull.
That rule does not say that the models are on the battlefield at all. If they were, why would you measure to the vehicle's hull? Wouldn't you just measure to the models?

Yes, we measure to the hull. It's a game abstraction given that we don't know where any given model is within the transport. Bottom line tho, in that they are in the transport and the transport is on the table. Not like the old days with an Ork Trukk where you actually jammed the models into the back of it and could measure to a given model. Basically, if I can measure to a point on the table for the unit (ie by measuring to the hull), then is that not where the unit is?

But I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

The problem is that the rules just don't justify your position. The rules, in fact, require the unit to be removed from the table.

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

This means that the unit is not making the Scout redeployment - the Transport is. Because the unit isn't on the table, per the rules.
Sure - for some effects we pretend they are, and can measure to them. But those are absolutely the exceptions to the rule, and not the general rule.

Now - to be clear - I don't think this is an intended result. But it could be.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, I have no issue with it - when backed with rules. There are some genuinely can-be-read-both-ways rules. There isnt any here though - nothign states the unit is Redeploying, by the rules the unit evoking the rule is the Transport, not the unit inside. It is 100% irrelevant that the vehicle only has the rule because of the unit inside - nothing int eh Scout rule states this.

To me it is clear that the unit with scout embarked on a non-scouting DT enable the redeployment and are taking part in that redeployment. It is implicit in the rules.

You claimed it is similar to the unit "making their move" in a transport - this is also wrong. The unit in a transport is moved, they do not move. You cannot refute that. If you are conflating the two that woudl exaplin why you are under the same impression here.

Yes, this is also frustrating. I respond to your questions and you read what you want in that. To reiterate, in a same way as transport allows moving the unit. Tell me, as the unit inside did not move, why can't they move after disembarking from a DT that moved?

again, you are claiming a unit is evoking a rule that requires they only move 6", yet you are moving them inside a vehicle 12". Page and para actually allowing this. 7th edition as well, as we are discussing 7th.

Tell me what allows the DT carrying scouts to redeploy 12". Page and paragraph as that is your MO?

Naw wrote:
Yes, this is also frustrating. I respond to your questions and you read what you want in that. To reiterate, in a same way as transport allows moving the unit. Tell me, as the unit inside did not move, why can't they move after disembarking from a DT that moved?

Because the rules say so.
You want a reason why the rules say that? Talk to the authors.

Tell me what allows the DT carrying scouts to redeploy 12". Page and paragraph as that is your MO?

If the unit is Infantry, Artillery, a Walker or a Monstrous Creature, each model can redeploy anywhere entirely within 6" of its current position. If it is any other unit type, each model can instead redeploy anywhere entirely within 12" of its current position.

Since most transports aren't Walkers, it would be "any other unit type" which means 12".
Yay rulez.

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Of note here, if the unit is not redeploying why does the rule here say that it is? If disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment, that implies the unit (which is what would disembark) is redeploying, but is denied the ability to disembark while doing so.

That's an assumption. If you wanted to disembark the Scouts while leaving the vehicle where it was deployed that would be illegal.
It's also a note that the vehicle doesn't disembark the passengers so you can't use the vehicle's redeployment to dump them out.

Units disembark from transports, so if the unit is denied disembarking as part of the redeployment, it is redeploying. IT defeats the "its not on the table thing" because if it were not on the table, you could not re-deploy it, and the restriciton would be redundant.

Breng77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Of note here, if the unit is not redeploying why does the rule here say that it is? If disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment, that implies the unit (which is what would disembark) is redeploying, but is denied the ability to disembark while doing so.

That's an assumption. If you wanted to disembark the Scouts while leaving the vehicle where it was deployed that would be illegal.
It's also a note that the vehicle doesn't disembark the passengers so you can't use the vehicle's redeployment to dump them out.

Units disembark from transports, so if the unit is denied disembarking as part of the redeployment, it is redeploying. IT defeats the "its not on the table thing" because if it were not on the table, you could not re-deploy it, and the restriciton would be redundant.

Without that rule, an embarked unit could choose to disembark as their own Scout move - nothing to do with it being a DT.
What the rule says, essentially, is that if you embark during deployment you don't get to Scout. Your transport might (if it's a DT) but you don't get to.

I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, I have no issue with it - when backed with rules. There are some genuinely can-be-read-both-ways rules. There isnt any here though - nothign states the unit is Redeploying, by the rules the unit evoking the rule is the Transport, not the unit inside. It is 100% irrelevant that the vehicle only has the rule because of the unit inside - nothing int eh Scout rule states this.

To me it is clear that the unit with scout embarked on a non-scouting DT enable the redeployment and are taking part in that redeployment. It is implicit in the rules.

Ah, so it isn't a rule then.
Again, who is evoking the Scout rule? The DT. Who is absolutely NOT evoking it? The unit inside.

Take your implicit and replace it with explicit. As in, your position is factually incorrect.

naw wrote:

You claimed it is similar to the unit "making their move" in a transport - this is also wrong. The unit in a transport is moved, they do not move. You cannot refute that. If you are conflating the two that woudl exaplin why you are under the same impression here.

Yes, this is also frustrating. I respond to your questions and you read what you want in that. To reiterate, in a same way as transport allows moving the unit. Tell me, as the unit inside did not move, why can't they move after disembarking from a DT that moved?

Ah, so you won't be enlightened as to your error. No worries. To be clear: the unit is moved, the unit is not moving. Otherwise they would be unable to move over 6". You are conflating two terms here, hence your confusion.

As to your question - have you read either 6th or 7th? You appear to be plaing 5th edition, where a unit could not move after disembarking from a moving transport because the rules explicitly stated so. Now, in the 6th or 7th edition rules, disembarking is explicitly also your move. And as such is bound by the rules for movement, ie once per phase. This is quite clear. Try reading the rules more closely before debating them.

naw wrote:

again, you are claiming a unit is evoking a rule that requires they only move 6", yet you are moving them inside a vehicle 12". Page and para actually allowing this. 7th edition as well, as we are discussing 7th.

Tell me what allows the DT carrying scouts to redeploy 12". Page and paragraph as that is your MO?

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Really? It hasn't. So if I put you in the back of a Uhaul truck, and move the truck from Texas to California. Are you in Texas or California?

If the transport has changed postitions so to has everything in the transport.

Breng77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Really? It hasn't. So if I put you in the back of a Uhaul truck, and move the truck from Texas to California. Are you in Texas or California?

If the transport has changed postitions so to has everything in the transport.

In the real world California, in the fake world according to the rules, Texas.

However, why would anyone want to leave the Lone Star state for California?

Removed. No need to discuss rules with certain people as those threads never go anywhere.

Breng77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Really? It hasn't. So if I put you in the back of a Uhaul truck, and move the truck from Texas to California. Are you in Texas or California?

If the transport has changed postitions so to has everything in the transport.

That's a great real world reason. Have a rules statement to back it up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Yes, this is also frustrating. I respond to your questions and you read what you want in that. To reiterate, in a same way as transport allows moving the unit. Tell me, as the unit inside did not move, why can't they move after disembarking from a DT that moved?

Because the rules say so.
You want a reason why the rules say that? Talk to the authors.

Tell me what allows the DT carrying scouts to redeploy 12". Page and paragraph as that is your MO?

If the unit is Infantry, Artillery, a Walker or a Monstrous Creature, each model can redeploy anywhere entirely within 6" of its current position. If it is any other unit type, each model can instead redeploy anywhere entirely within 12" of its current position.

Since most transports aren't Walkers, it would be "any other unit type" which means 12".
Yay rulez.

..and this supports my stance. The DT can move 12" in both cases. When the vehicle redeploys (thanks to the scouts), the passengers also make the redeployment. When the vehicle moves 12", the unit within counts as having moved. Thank you for proving my point.

If the passengers are redeploying, why are they able to redeploy 12"?

 deviantduck wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Really? It hasn't. So if I put you in the back of a Uhaul truck, and move the truck from Texas to California. Are you in Texas or California?

If the transport has changed postitions so to has everything in the transport.

In the real world California, in the fake world according to the rules, Texas.

However, why would anyone want to leave the Lone Star state for California?

Disagree on the rules point, but as for why anyone would want to leave the lone star state for Cali? I never said I put him in the back of the Uhaul willingly

Naw wrote:
Removed. No need to discuss rules with certain people as those threads never go anywhere.

they would if you ever quoted rules. That would be one way to debate, and follows the tenets.

I see you again refuse to follow them though, as even prior to the removal you failed to cite any rules. Again.

just a quick question as I do not have my book handy, does a unit inside a transport count as moving if the transport moved? This would directly apply to the scout redeploy (move) problem because even if the models inside did not move but the transport did they would count as making a scout move. Hope this helps!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
just a quick question as I do not have my book handy, does a unit inside a transport count as moving if the transport moved? This would directly apply to the scout redeploy (move) problem because even if the models inside did not move but the transport did they would count as making a scout move. Hope this helps!

Yes, they do count as having moved.
Scout "movement" is explicitly not a move, but rather a redeployment. So that's a poor comparison to draw.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Removed. No need to discuss rules with certain people as those threads never go anywhere.

they would if you ever quoted rules. That would be one way to debate, and follows the tenets.

I see you again refuse to follow them though, as even prior to the removal you failed to cite any rules. Again.

They have always been given along with my reasoning, you just keep ignoring everything not in support of your own view, whatever it might be. You also seem to think that these debates are done to find a winner. If you do, you are mistaken. There is a picture somewhere that touches this issue.

Your MO is to often point at the tenets, when someone shows a different view, even when direct rules quotes have been given.

I won't put you to ignore as you can at times provide insight but I will no longer respond to your messages in any form.

Naw wrote:
They have always been given along with my reasoning, you just keep ignoring everything not in support of your own view, whatever it might be.

They really haven't. And unless you have me on ignore as well, you're just as guilty of not responding to opposing argument.

You also seem to think that these debates are done to find a winner. If you do, you are mistaken. There is a picture somewhere that touches this issue.

Well, no - debates are done to come to a conclusion as to the best path forward. In that sense there is a "winner".

You do know you can respond to anyone in the thread, right? Not just nos?

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Removed. No need to discuss rules with certain people as those threads never go anywhere.

they would if you ever quoted rules. That would be one way to debate, and follows the tenets.

I see you again refuse to follow them though, as even prior to the removal you failed to cite any rules. Again.

They have always been given along with my reasoning, you just keep ignoring everything not in support of your own view, whatever it might be. You also seem to think that these debates are done to find a winner. If you do, you are mistaken. There is a picture somewhere that touches this issue.

Your MO is to often point at the tenets, when someone shows a different view, even when direct rules quotes have been given.

I won't put you to ignore as you can at times provide insight but I will no longer respond to your messages in any form.

Actually You failed to cite a *single* rule in support. You even stated it was "implicit" support in the rules , yet the explicit rules stated otherwise.

You, as per your MO, refused to supply a rules citation when asked, and instead asked a question - which was answered, yet you still cannot provide a rules quote, as asked.

This isn't clinging to the tenets, rather asking you to do what is required, and support your stance. In this, as in other threads, you refuse to do so.

As such mark your posts "hywpi", as you cannot substantiate any argument. It will save people the trouble go attempting debate

Quick question, has there been any change to the rules for deploying units and their DTs at the start of the game?

Specifically, are the listed as deploying within the vehicle or with the vehicle?

Cheers

Andrew

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
They have always been given along with my reasoning, you just keep ignoring everything not in support of your own view, whatever it might be.

They really haven't. And unless you have me on ignore as well, you're just as guilty of not responding to opposing argument.

I don't have you on ignore, I just choose not to debate with you as I wrote in another thread a while ago. It is fruitless and leads nowhere. That does not mean that I always disagree with you (or Nos). But to save everyone's time I won't do it.

As for the topic at hand, there has been nothing that leads me to believe that an embarked unit does not scout, infiltrate, outflank or deep strike along with its dedicated transport. Rules have been laid out many times already, repeating them means nothing to you as we both know you won't accept them.

Naw wrote:
Rules have been laid out many times already, repeating them means nothing to you as we both know you won't accept them.

That's a lie, but you knew that.
Your refusal to contribute to the debate means you know your side has no support.
Have a nice day.

STOP!

Get back on topic guys/? girls and argue the rules and not each other.
I don't want to lock the thread at its current juncture.
Move on and be well.

Waaagh_Gonads
Dakka Moderator