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.

Eyjio wrote:
If what you were saying held up, you would be able to put 20 warriors in a ghost ark at deployment. Clearly that is absurd, and overriden by the exception that you cannot fit more models in a transport than the capacity allows. This is similar, but is instead restricted by not being able to fit in jump infantry. You cannot ignore that restriction for the same reason as you cannot ignore transport capacity - it's against the rules. It's most likely a rules mess up, but that's how it is.

This.

Ignoring one restriction for one unit while enforcing all other restrictions for all other units is nothing but wishing and a RAI argument.

The DT rules do not specifically (note that word) state otherwise.

Eyjio wrote:
If what you were saying held up, you would be able to put 20 warriors in a ghost ark at deployment. Clearly that is absurd, and overriden by the exception that you cannot fit more models in a transport than the capacity allows. This is similar, but is instead restricted by not being able to fit in jump infantry. You cannot ignore that restriction for the same reason as you cannot ignore transport capacity - it's against the rules. It's most likely a rules mess up, but that's how it is.

No one is saying that you don't have to meet other restrictions such as transport capacity. In fact, that is a straw man argument as all restrictions must be met and at no point did I say otherwise.


The argument put forward is that, per the definition of dedicated transport, a unit that is expressly permitted to select a dedicated transport and be deployed as a single unit with that dedicated transport at deployment "can be carried" in that transport.

I have traced a clear line of permission based on definitions and codex permissions.

col_impact wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
If what you were saying held up, you would be able to put 20 warriors in a ghost ark at deployment. Clearly that is absurd, and overriden by the exception that you cannot fit more models in a transport than the capacity allows. This is similar, but is instead restricted by not being able to fit in jump infantry. You cannot ignore that restriction for the same reason as you cannot ignore transport capacity - it's against the rules. It's most likely a rules mess up, but that's how it is.

No one is saying that you don't have to meet other restrictions such as transport capacity. In fact, that is a straw man argument as all restrictions must be met and at no point did I say otherwise.

You explicitly are saying otherwise. There's a restriction (specifically) against Jump Infantry embarking and you're saying it doesn't apply (despite no rule specifically allowing them to embark.

The argument put forward is that, per the definition of dedicated transport, a unit that is expressly permitted to select a dedicated transport and be deployed as a single unit with that dedicated transport at deployment "can be carried" in that transport.

I have traced a clear line of permission based on definitions and codex permissions.

Where does that specifically say they can embark?
At best it's an implication and a great RAI argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
If what you were saying held up, you would be able to put 20 warriors in a ghost ark at deployment. Clearly that is absurd, and overriden by the exception that you cannot fit more models in a transport than the capacity allows. This is similar, but is instead restricted by not being able to fit in jump infantry. You cannot ignore that restriction for the same reason as you cannot ignore transport capacity - it's against the rules. It's most likely a rules mess up, but that's how it is.

No one is saying that you don't have to meet other restrictions such as transport capacity. In fact, that is a straw man argument as all restrictions must be met and at no point did I say otherwise.

You explicitly are saying otherwise. There's a restriction (specifically) against Jump Infantry embarking and you're saying it doesn't apply (despite no rule specifically allowing them to embark.

The argument put forward is that, per the definition of dedicated transport, a unit that is expressly permitted to select a dedicated transport and be deployed as a single unit with that dedicated transport at deployment "can be carried" in that transport.

I have traced a clear line of permission based on definitions and codex permissions.

Where does that specifically say they can embark?
At best it's an implication and a great RAI argument.

By reading the definition of Dedicated Transport I can answer definitively yes to the question that NS can carry the Praetorians because it was selected as a dedicated transport with them. Of course transport capacity can still otherwise restrict that permission. But minus any problems with transport capacity I most assuredly can!

col_impact wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
If what you were saying held up, you would be able to put 20 warriors in a ghost ark at deployment. Clearly that is absurd, and overriden by the exception that you cannot fit more models in a transport than the capacity allows. This is similar, but is instead restricted by not being able to fit in jump infantry. You cannot ignore that restriction for the same reason as you cannot ignore transport capacity - it's against the rules. It's most likely a rules mess up, but that's how it is.

No one is saying that you don't have to meet other restrictions such as transport capacity. In fact, that is a straw man argument as all restrictions must be met and at no point did I say otherwise.


The argument put forward is that, per the definition of dedicated transport, a unit that is expressly permitted to select a dedicated transport and be deployed as a single unit with that dedicated transport at deployment "can be carried" in that transport.

I have traced a clear line of permission based on definitions and codex permissions.

No, you have not. Here is the relevant quote you posted:

The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).

Let's just go through this to make the logic abundantly clear:

The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed
AKA at deployment, the relevant phase you're trying to address.

it can only carry the unit it was selected with
AKA you can AT BEST carry the unit which was picked. This does not say "the unit which selects the transport may always begin embarked", it says no other unit can begin embarked on the transport. We know there are exceptions to this rule - you even admit that transport capacity would be one such restriction.

(plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
This is a clarification so no-one would be confused as to whether ICs would count as the unit or not.


So where, exactly, is the rule which says "a unit which selects a dedicated transport may always embark on it without restriction"? This is the exact same issue as trying to say you can embark more models than the transport capacity - that is not a strawman, neither jump nor capacity are raised in the bit you're attempting to use to justify your argument. Your logic is this equivalence:
(Unit p can select transport q) <=> (Unit p can embark on dedicated transport q at deployment)
What the rule actually says is this:
(Unit p can select transport q) <= (Unit p can embark on dedicated transport q at deployment)
It's just not true. You still need to obey the restrictions of embarking to embark, even at deployment. Nothing gives you any allowance to ignore them and it's a permissive ruleset.

I'm just going to look at it as RAI that the vehicles rules use of "infantry" is permissive for all types of infantry (Infantry, Jump Pack Infantry, Jet Pack Infantry) and allow my opponents to proceed accordingly.

Wow. Where have the basic tenets of YMTC gone?

Being able to select a DT in no way shape or form allows jump infantry to embark. That's just plain ignoring rules. My SM bike command squad can buy drop pods and rhinos. My jump pack command squad can do the same. Are they now allowed to ride around in rhinos?! This is such inane and faulty logic.

RAI: who knows?
RAW: no freaking way! You absolutely cannot embark them unless you want to blatantly ignore rules.

Play the game, follow rules. Only where the rules break the game do RAI arguments get any traction. With any luck we'll get an FAQ on this one. But I see RAI as giving you an extra DT. That's it.

Eyjio wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
If what you were saying held up, you would be able to put 20 warriors in a ghost ark at deployment. Clearly that is absurd, and overriden by the exception that you cannot fit more models in a transport than the capacity allows. This is similar, but is instead restricted by not being able to fit in jump infantry. You cannot ignore that restriction for the same reason as you cannot ignore transport capacity - it's against the rules. It's most likely a rules mess up, but that's how it is.

No one is saying that you don't have to meet other restrictions such as transport capacity. In fact, that is a straw man argument as all restrictions must be met and at no point did I say otherwise.


The argument put forward is that, per the definition of dedicated transport, a unit that is expressly permitted to select a dedicated transport and be deployed as a single unit with that dedicated transport at deployment "can be carried" in that transport.

I have traced a clear line of permission based on definitions and codex permissions.

No, you have not. Here is the relevant quote you posted:

The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).

Let's just go through this to make the logic abundantly clear:

The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed
AKA at deployment, the relevant phase you're trying to address.

it can only carry the unit it was selected with
AKA you can AT BEST carry the unit which was picked. This does not say "the unit which selects the transport may always begin embarked", it says no other unit can begin embarked on the transport. We know there are exceptions to this rule - you even admit that transport capacity would be one such restriction.

(plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
This is a clarification so no-one would be confused as to whether ICs would count as the unit or not.


So where, exactly, is the rule which says "a unit which selects a dedicated transport may always embark on it without restriction"? This is the exact same issue as trying to say you can embark more models than the transport capacity - that is not a strawman, neither jump nor capacity are raised in the bit you're attempting to use to justify your argument. Your logic is this equivalence:
(Unit p can select transport q) <=> (Unit p can embark on dedicated transport q at deployment)
What the rule actually says is this:
(Unit p can select transport q) <= (Unit p can embark on dedicated transport q at deployment)
It's just not true. You still need to obey the restrictions of embarking to embark, even at deployment. Nothing gives you any allowance to ignore them and it's a permissive ruleset.

You don't actually embark the Praetorians into the Night Scythe. They are deployed in the Night Scythe at deployment. They have permission and there is nothing preventing this.

PanzerLeader wrote:
I'm just going to look at it as RAI that the vehicles rules use of "infantry" is permissive for all types of infantry (Infantry, Jump Pack Infantry, Jet Pack Infantry) and allow my opponents to proceed accordingly.

From 'Transports' in the main rulebook:

Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.

The use of the term 'Infantry' is demonstrably proven to not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry, intentional or otherwise.

 Ghaz wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
I'm just going to look at it as RAI that the vehicles rules use of "infantry" is permissive for all types of infantry (Infantry, Jump Pack Infantry, Jet Pack Infantry) and allow my opponents to proceed accordingly.

From 'Transports' in the main rulebook:

Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.

The use of the term 'Infantry' is demonstrably proven to not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry, intentional or otherwise.

Thanks. Haven't look there in awhile.

First off, we really need to stop talking about embarking here since its not possible to embark anything on a Night Scythe ever.

If you think otherwise you need to show how you embark anything onto a Night Scythe.

As shown the Praetorians have permission to be deployed in a Night Scythe since they are allowed to select the Night Scythe as a dedicated transport. As long as they obey capacity restrictions a clear line of permission is drawn.

col_impact wrote:
First off, we really need to stop talking about embarking here since its not possible to embark anything on a Night Scythe ever.

If you think otherwise you need to show how you embark anything onto a Night Scythe.

As shown the Praetorians have permission to be deployed in a Night Scythe since they are allowed to select the Night Scythe as a dedicated transport. As long as they obey capacity restrictions a clear line of permission is drawn.

Wow your a broken record. It has been outlined by MULTIPLE people using direct quote from the rules as to why your wrong. Repeating the same busted logic doesn't make you correct. RAW you have not been given specific permission. Being able to select a transport is not specific, it's in fact the opposite, vague.

 Red Corsair wrote:

col_impact wrote:
First off, we really need to stop talking about embarking here since its not possible to embark anything on a Night Scythe ever.

If you think otherwise you need to show how you embark anything onto a Night Scythe.

As shown the Praetorians have permission to be deployed in a Night Scythe since they are allowed to select the Night Scythe as a dedicated transport. As long as they obey capacity restrictions a clear line of permission is drawn.

Wow your a broken record. It has been outlined by MULTIPLE people using direct quote from the rules as to why your wrong. Repeating the same busted logic doesn't make you correct. RAW you have not been given specific permission. Being able to select a transport is not specific, it's in fact the opposite, vague.

This is not a popularity contest nor a democratic vote. I have traced the permission in the rules. I am the only one quoting rules in here.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Wow your a broken record. It has been outlined by MULTIPLE people using direct quote from the rules as to why your wrong. Repeating the same busted logic doesn't make you correct. RAW you have not been given specific permission. Being able to select a transport is not specific, it's in fact the opposite, vague.

Broken record?
Ironic, since that is the first time he used that pretty strong argument.
Maybe you should actually read a post before responding.

The only restriction applies to Embarking.
Embarking, according to the BRB, is moving into the Vehicle during the Movement Phase.
The restriction does not apply to starting the game in the Dedicated Transport itself.

Is that a heavy abuse of the rules to get things done your way?
Yes, but not as bad as trying to rules-lawyer a unit out of their own Dedicated Transport.
Seriously people.. We are now on the third page of a discussion whether a unit can sit in its own Dedicated Transport.

I seriously cannot believe there is a debate over this. This is rules lawyering at its worst. CODEX TRUMPS BRB, period. Take your heads out of your arse. If GW put a DT in the new praetorians entry, it's intended to be used as such. Otherwise it serves no purpose outside of being a foc-free, empty flier, only if you decide to deploy them separately. Do you seriously believe the spirit and intent of adding a DT to this unit was the principal behind the aforementioned use?

Stop being narrow-minded drudges...

Except there's nothing in the codex that trumps the rulebook restriction preventing Jump Infantry from embarking on a transport.

 Ghaz wrote:
Except there's nothing in the codex that trumps the rulebook restriction preventing Jump Infantry from embarking on a transport.

A prefect example of why I support using appropriate language in response to other users instead of breaking Rule #1, motyak

So by avoiding the question you admit you have nothing to back up your position.

 Nyghoma wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So by avoiding the question you admit you have nothing to back up your position.

Well your contribution to this conversation is the echo of a parrot to flawed, sterile thinking. If you follow this line of reason, you sir are divorce and bankrupt of any acumen and kinesthesia. I suggest a career outside of pathology.

But in all seriousness, this is the kind of nauseating contortion of rules that makes fluid and conductive play a mired labor.

It's not a contortion of rules. The DT rules say only the purchasing unit can be deployed inside the DT. The Transport rules say Jump Infantry can't be embarked on a Transport without a specific permission. The Necron Codex doesn't say anywhere that Praetorians can be deployed in a Night Scythe.

Is it implied? Who the feth knows? None of us wrote the rules and none of us are the authors.

My opinion is that GW probably intended for Praetorians to be allowed to deploy in their DT. Unfortunately, the rules don't currently allow this. Would I allow it in a game. Sure. But we aren't talking about A game. We're talking about THE game. This isn't permitted by the rules in THE game.

Ultimately, the following question has a single answer.

Can a unit of Praetorians be deployed inside a Night Scythe purchased as a Fast Attack choice. No. Why? Because Jump Infantry can never be embarked upon a Transport without that Transport having a specific exemption.

Can a unit of Praetorians be deployed inside a Night Scythe purchased as a Dedicated Transports? No. Why? Same reason as above. The Night Scythe has no permission to transport Jump Infantry.

This will probably be FAQ'd by GW at some point to allow the NS to transport Praetorians.

Kangodo wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Wow your a broken record. It has been outlined by MULTIPLE people using direct quote from the rules as to why your wrong. Repeating the same busted logic doesn't make you correct. RAW you have not been given specific permission. Being able to select a transport is not specific, it's in fact the opposite, vague.

Is that a heavy abuse of the rules to get things done your way?
Yes, but not as bad as trying to rules-lawyer a unit out of their own Dedicated Transport.
Seriously people.. We are now on the third page of a discussion whether a unit can sit in its own Dedicated Transport.

So you admit it's abusing the rules, great.

Following his reasoning I can place my space marine biker command squad in a rhino because it's a dedicated transport option. Having the option to takle a dedicated transport is not SPECIFIC permission to overide the restriction on jump pack infantry not being able to embark. Period. Cite SPECIFIC permission? I'll wait. This forum runs on strict RAW, read the tenents before posting.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Wow your a broken record. It has been outlined by MULTIPLE people using direct quote from the rules as to why your wrong. Repeating the same busted logic doesn't make you correct. RAW you have not been given specific permission. Being able to select a transport is not specific, it's in fact the opposite, vague.

Is that a heavy abuse of the rules to get things done your way?
Yes, but not as bad as trying to rules-lawyer a unit out of their own Dedicated Transport.
Seriously people.. We are now on the third page of a discussion whether a unit can sit in its own Dedicated Transport.

So you admit it's abusing the rules, great.

Following his reasoning I can place my space marine biker command squad in a rhino because it's a dedicated transport option. Having the option to takle a dedicated transport is not SPECIFIC permission to overide the restriction on jump pack infantry not being able to embark. Period. Cite SPECIFIC permission? I'll wait. This forum runs on strict RAW, read the tenents before posting.

This a thousand times.

I'm assuming those wanting and wishing to put jump infantry have never read/used/played SM, BA, anything Forgeworld, or HH. This is hardly the first time a units been able to purchase a DT it can't use or that a transports been lacking permission to grab a naturally associated unit. You get a DT. 100% RAW is against the RAI wishing here. There's not even ambiguity here. If you want to argue omission, go for it, but right now it's wielding a banana in a gun fight (I'll up grade you to a knife when you make a RAW argument, no matter how weak).

 Red Corsair wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Wow your a broken record. It has been outlined by MULTIPLE people using direct quote from the rules as to why your wrong. Repeating the same busted logic doesn't make you correct. RAW you have not been given specific permission. Being able to select a transport is not specific, it's in fact the opposite, vague.

Is that a heavy abuse of the rules to get things done your way?
Yes, but not as bad as trying to rules-lawyer a unit out of their own Dedicated Transport.
Seriously people.. We are now on the third page of a discussion whether a unit can sit in its own Dedicated Transport.

So you admit it's abusing the rules, great.

Following his reasoning I can place my space marine biker command squad in a rhino because it's a dedicated transport option. Having the option to takle a dedicated transport is not SPECIFIC permission to overide the restriction on jump pack infantry not being able to embark. Period. Cite SPECIFIC permission? I'll wait. This forum runs on strict RAW, read the tenents before posting.

Do all command squads have bikes or is the bike an upgrade option?

Optioning yourself out of a dedicated transport is not the same as an optionless Praetorian being given explicit permission to select a dedicated transport and the rules supporting deploying in the Night Scythe.

If you guys are going to defeat obvious RAW and obvious RAI by rules lawyering then let's play it that we don't get invulnerability saves.

At a certain point you have to take the road that is obvious. If you disagree feel free to stop taking your invulnerability saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
Except there's nothing in the codex that trumps the rulebook restriction preventing Jump Infantry from embarking on a transport.

We aren't embarking. We are deploying the Praetorians inside the dedicated transport as per the rules.

Don't know if this helps but page 80 of the BRB under Transport Capacity

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

Now that rule doesn't limit what can be carried on a Transport but then there is this line later on

"Only Infantry models can embark upon transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise."

Now the key work here is embark and that is not with a big E so does this mean it is the action Embarking (the rule) and not a state of the unit "inside" of the transport?

Also a bit of time sillyness Combined Reserve Units on page 135 states "Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together."

Key word here is embarkED as past tense form of embark meaning that it is already inside of the transport and does not go through the embarking steps.


So is embark the state of a unit inside the Transport or is it the process of getting onto the Transport?

(Also on another note what is this magical realm where the unit is while carried on the Transport called? All it saws is remove the unit from the table and place it aside making a note that the unit is being transported)

I don't know what side I am on because i can see it both ways I just wanted to post some stuff that could be seen as confusion or misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the rules that are effectively the same thing meaning wise but different effects.

 Red Corsair wrote:
So you admit it's abusing the rules, great.

Following his reasoning I can place my space marine biker command squad in a rhino because it's a dedicated transport option. Having the option to takle a dedicated transport is not SPECIFIC permission to overide the restriction on jump pack infantry not being able to embark. Period. Cite SPECIFIC permission? I'll wait. This forum runs on strict RAW, read the tenents before posting.

Abusing, not breaking.

So what? For all I care the entire game could stop working following that reason.
As you said: This forum runs on strict RAW, not on 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments.
You are actually trying to disprove my argument by saying it has ridiculous outcomes in other cases.
That is NOT a decent argument!

I will not cite specific permission because that is ONLY required for embarking.
Don't like that because it technically allows bikes in a rhino? Take it up with the writers, not with me.
And do you think that is silly? On a scale of 1 to 10, how silly is it compared to disallowing a unit to start the game on their own Dedicated Transport?

It's obvious RAI that Prats can use their NS.

 Lobukia wrote:
Wow. Where have the basic tenets of YMTC gone?

Being able to select a DT in no way shape or form allows jump infantry to embark. That's just plain ignoring rules. My SM bike command squad can buy drop pods and rhinos. My jump pack command squad can do the same. Are they now allowed to ride around in rhinos?! This is such inane and faulty logic.

RAI: who knows?
RAW: no freaking way! You absolutely cannot embark them unless you want to blatantly ignore rules.

Play the game, follow rules. Only where the rules break the game do RAI arguments get any traction. With any luck we'll get an FAQ on this one. But I see RAI as giving you an extra DT. That's it.

Between this and 20-man Squads having an option for DT is enough to say that however you want to argue this RaW it will only be wishlisting.

Just to add another example if needed: Battle Sister Squads of 20 can select an Immolator as DT (Transport capacity = 5).
If you want to put praetorians in NIghtscythes, i'll put my 20-girl Squads with accompanying IC x3 in my immolators.
The logical argument is exactly the same

col_impact wrote:
First off, we really need to stop talking about embarking here since its not possible to embark anything on a Night Scythe ever.

Then it's never possible to disembark anything from a Night Scythe, ever.

So let's just stop that argument in its tracks.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Between this and 20-man Squads having an option for DT is enough to say that however you want to argue this RaW it will only be wishlisting.

Just to add another example if needed: Battle Sister Squads of 20 can select an Immolator as DT (Transport capacity = 5).
If you want to put praetorians in NIghtscythes, i'll put my 20-girl Squads with accompanying IC x3 in my immolators.
The logical argument is exactly the same

BRB: 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.

So there is an explicit prohibition on going over the capacity at any time, including during deployment, and also putting bikes in them or whatever other nonsense people in this thread are throwing out there. It is infantry only. The argument only works for jump and jet pack infantry that do not exceed the transport capacity.

col_impact wrote:

Optioning yourself out of a dedicated transport is not the same as an optionless Praetorian being given explicit permission to select a dedicated transport and the rules supporting deploying in the Night Scythe.

Why? I see no basis ion the rules for saying that. If your line of argument is correct, it's completely irrelevant as to whether the inability to begin embarked is done via an option or not. Feel free to point out why they're different.

If you guys are going to defeat obvious RAW and obvious RAI by rules lawyering then let's play it that we don't get invulnerability saves.

Are you seriously arguing that other people are rules lawyering when the intent is not clear (it could very well have been a mistake, there are enough in any given codex) and your entire point hinges around "being embarked" doesn't mean the rules for "embarking" apply? Come on, yoou could at least try to not be massively disingenuous.

We aren't embarking. We are deploying the Praetorians inside the dedicated transport as per the rules.

You are beginning embarked. Do I really need to quote all of the relevant rules here? I was trying to avoid this, because your entire argument is obtuse.

TRANSPORTS:
Each transport 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 the are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. The entire unit must be embarked on the transport if any part of it is - a unit cannot be partially embarked or spread across multiple Transports.

Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.

DEPLOYMENT:
[...] models must either deploy within their deployment zone, or be held back in Reserve. Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity. Units may not be deployed in impassable terrain. Note that models must be deployed fully within their deployment zone: you can’t have part of a model inside the deployment zone and part of the model outside it!


Here are all the things which MUST hold true for your argument to be correct:
1) Being embarked ignores all restrictions of embarking
2) Embarking and being embarked follow two completely unique sets of restrictions
3) Being deployed inside something does not count as embarking upon a transport
4) You can be embarked upon something without ever embarking

If 1) fails, than you can never put jump infantry into a transport unless explicitly allowed. If 2) fails, jump infantry cannot disembark, as this requires being embarked. If 3) fails, you are subject to the exemption of jump infantry for embarkation. If 4) fails, you are unable to deploy any unit beginning inside a transport at all, remaining stuck inside the vehicle.

If all of these do hold true, there is NOTHING stopping units buying things which would otherwise make them unable to enter a transport, then deploying inside that transport at deployment. Ergo the example of space marine bikers sitting in a Rhino is not in any way restricted by your argument. And yet you accuse others of rules lawyering and ignoring RAI? To any reasonably minded person, being embarked upon a vehicle means "to have boarded a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle, as for a journey". How then can you qualify as embarked without embarking? Either you cede that deployment inside a vehicle qualifies as embarking, or you have to ignore all meaningful definitions of the word embarked. If you don't do the former, you cannot put Praetorians in a Night Scythe. If you don't do the latter you can never disembark from the Night Scythe anyway.

Your argument is demonstrably false, your evidence flawed and your stubbornness hinges on the English language holding no meaning whatsoever. No reasonable person can assume you are embarked without undergoing embarkation. Ergo, deploying inside a vehicle qualifies as embarkation, ergo it exempts you from deploying inside a transport of any kind if you cannot embark upon that transport. This is the way it has worked for the past 5 editions now. To even debate this further is pointless, you just cannot argue that you can be embarked and yet not follow the rules for embarking because the rules don't explicitly call the process of deploying inside a vehicle embarking. It's beyond absurd.

Tekron wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Between this and 20-man Squads having an option for DT is enough to say that however you want to argue this RaW it will only be wishlisting.

Just to add another example if needed: Battle Sister Squads of 20 can select an Immolator as DT (Transport capacity = 5).
If you want to put praetorians in NIghtscythes, i'll put my 20-girl Squads with accompanying IC x3 in my immolators.
The logical argument is exactly the same

BRB: 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.

So there is an explicit prohibition on going over the capacity at any time, including during deployment, and also putting bikes in them or whatever other nonsense people in this thread are throwing out there. It is infantry only. The argument only works for jump and jet pack infantry that do not exceed the transport capacity.

The underlined above is a contradiction:
You say "infantry only". Jump and Jet infantry are not "infantry only".