Kriswall wrote:
OK then...
When I play versus the Triarchs in a Night Scythe, I'll be fielding 30 man Ork Boyz Trukk gunboats.

Oberron wrote:
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 embarking 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 says is remove the unit from the table and place it aside making a note that the unit is being transported is that it?)

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.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes. Any assumptions otherwise have yet to be proven with actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes. Any assumptions otherwise have yet to be proven with actual rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
So you're saying a unit that starts the game in a transport isn't Fearless and if it fires a template weapon it will hit the transport?

 Ghaz wrote:
Its for those claiming starting the game in a transport aren't 'embarked'.

 Ghaz wrote:
I agree that they are embarked, I was just bringing up a few 'problems' that would arise by claiming otherwise.

col_impact wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
I agree that they are embarked, I was just bringing up a few 'problems' that would arise by claiming otherwise.

I am not claiming that they are not embarked once on the transport, only that I was not required to embark them. If you feel otherwise point out in the rules where I am being asked to embark them on the Night Scythe.

I follow the rules provided and deploy them on the Night Scythe. They wind up being pre-embarked by no action of mine per the Combine Reserves rule.

Eyjio wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
I agree that they are embarked, I was just bringing up a few 'problems' that would arise by claiming otherwise.

I am not claiming that they are not embarked once on the transport, only that I was not required to embark them. If you feel otherwise point out in the rules where I am being asked to embark them on the Night Scythe.

I follow the rules provided and deploy them on the Night Scythe. They wind up being pre-embarked by no action of mine per the Combine Reserves rule.

I already went through comprehensively why your argument was wrong. Why do you keep repeating it as if it's magically become correct? For all your whining about it being rules lawyering (it wasn't) and mentioning invulnerable saves (which were totally irrelevant), you never actually showed why the debunking was wrong. Most likely, because as almost every other person in this thread has told you, you are the one at fault. You cannot argue that you are embarked yet never embarked. It make literally no sense whatsoever. You need to go back to that post and explain how your argument addresses each of the four logical flaws which were pointed out.

Until then, we can all safely assume that you're incorrect, and that it's a typo from GW, where a unit can take a dedicated transport it cannot enter.

Eyjio wrote:
Until then, we can all safely assume that you're incorrect, and that it's a typo from GW, where a unit can take a dedicated transport it cannot enter.

col_impact wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
I agree that they are embarked, I was just bringing up a few 'problems' that would arise by claiming otherwise.

I am not claiming that they are not embarked once on the transport, only that I was not required to embark them. If you feel otherwise point out in the rules where I am being asked to embark them on the Night Scythe.

I follow the rules provided and deploy them on the Night Scythe. They wind up being pre-embarked by no action of mine per the Combine Reserves rule.

I already went through comprehensively why your argument was wrong. Why do you keep repeating it as if it's magically become correct? For all your whining about it being rules lawyering (it wasn't) and mentioning invulnerable saves (which were totally irrelevant), you never actually showed why the debunking was wrong. Most likely, because as almost every other person in this thread has told you, you are the one at fault. You cannot argue that you are embarked yet never embarked. It make literally no sense whatsoever. You need to go back to that post and explain how your argument addresses each of the four logical flaws which were pointed out.

Until then, we can all safely assume that you're incorrect, and that it's a typo from GW, where a unit can take a dedicated transport it cannot enter.

I follow the rule I posted amd deploy the Praetorians on the Night Scythe as allowed by the Dedicated Transport definition. The Combine Reserves rule establishes the Praetorians as pre-embarked through no action of my own. I am breaking no rule. The burden is on you to show me a rule that I am breaking. You have not so the burden is on you.

If you have a problem with it making sense then you have a problem with the rules making sense. I am simply following rules.

Ghaz wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Until then, we can all safely assume that you're incorrect, and that it's a typo from GW, where a unit can take a dedicated transport it cannot enter.

Except you're making the assumption that the typo is what's preventing them from embarking on the transport and not the fact that they get a transport in the first place. There's three possible scenarios at play here:

1 .) Triarch Praetorians were intended to have a Night Scythe as a Dedicated Transport they could embark upon and GW somehow accidentally removed the explicit permission from the previous codex that allowed them to embark.

2. ) The rules for the Night Scythe were deliberately changed to not allow anything other than Infantry to embark and either forgot to remove the option from the Triarch Praetorians entry or forgot that they're Jump Infantry and can't embark in the first place.

3. ) The rules are as they should be and they have a transport they can't embark on.

Personally I feel the second scenario is most likely, but I'm not going to claim that I know what they intended. As of right now, the third scenario is the RAW.

 Ghaz wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Until then, we can all safely assume that you're incorrect, and that it's a typo from GW, where a unit can take a dedicated transport it cannot enter.

Except you're making the assumption that the typo is what's preventing them from embarking on the transport and not the fact that they get a transport in the first place. There's three possible scenarios at play here:

1 .) Triarch Praetorians were intended to have a Night Scythe as a Dedicated Transport they could embark upon and GW somehow accidentally removed the explicit permission from the previous codex that allowed them to embark.

2. ) The rules for the Night Scythe were deliberately changed to not allow anything other than Infantry to embark and either forgot to remove the option from the Triarch Praetorians entry or forgot that they're Jump Infantry and can't embark in the first place.

3. ) The rules are as they should be and they have a transport they can't embark on.

Personally I feel the second scenario is most likely, but I'm not going to claim that I know what they intended. As of right now, the third scenario is the RAW.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I don't see in the NS or Triarch profiles when it states that the NS can carry Jump Infantry (like in a Stormraven's profile)

col_impact wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I don't see in the NS or Triarch profiles when it states that the NS can carry Jump Infantry (like in a Stormraven's profile)

GW inconsistency across codex's is irrelevant and given their track record hardly expected.

I have shown you the rules that give me a chain of permission. It's up to you to show me a rule that I have broken.

Eyjio wrote:
I made no such assumption, I just said they can buy a transport which they can't enter and that it's probably a typo.

col_impact wrote:
so Scenario 4 is . . .

4: ) GW thinks the rules work just fine as is, and the Praetorians can deploy in their dedicated transport no problem.

 Frozocrone wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I don't see in the NS or Triarch profiles when it states that the NS can carry Jump Infantry (like in a Stormraven's profile)

GW inconsistency across codex's is irrelevant and given their track record hardly expected.

I have shown you the rules that give me a chain of permission. It's up to you to show me a rule that I have broken.

Surely the (this excludes Jump Infantry and Jet Infantry) rule is being broken by you?

col_impact wrote:

I don't break that rule because at no point am I embarking.

col_impact wrote:
I don't break that rule because at no point am I embarking.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:

I don't break that rule because at no point am I embarking.

This interpretation would allow jump Infantry, bikes, monstrous creatures, or Titans to begin the game in any transport, though, so is unlikely to be what was intended.

 Frozocrone wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I don't break that rule because at no point am I embarking.

According to the Combined Reserves Rules, you have to state at the beginning of the game 'if units are embarked upon any transport vehicles in reserve in which case they arrive together'. (eBook copy, page ref. unavailable)

Following this argument, since at no point are you embarking, you are prohibited from declaring the Triarchs are embarked on the NS.
If you declare the Triarch's are embarked, then you have to have done 'embarking', which the Transports' rules that 'exclude Jump and Jet Pack infantry' disallow you from doing so

col_impact wrote:
The rule has a loophole so people have to consciously or unconsciously patch the rule with some view of intent.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rule has a loophole so people have to consciously or unconsciously patch the rule with some view of intent.

Indeed. But in doing that, you need to patch it with something that doesn't create a bigger problem than it solves.

Arguing that a unit that begins the game embarked into a vehicle side-steps the transport rules because they never actualy goes through the process of embarking causes bigger problems, so is not a good resolution to this particular issue.

col_impact wrote:
It is a fine resolution of this issue in isolation.

Keep in mind that on the Praetorian profile there is a dedicated transport that is OBVIOUSLY meant to indeed be used.

We need to really only be consistent with our patching. That the patching is guided by intent.