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: Yes, but neither do you dozer. It's a discussion, do you understand that concept? It's in the tenets. Your remarks add nothing of any use.
Nilok - it states they follow the rules for Jump UNITS and for infantry
Jump
Units
Jump units have no permission to be carried.
Proven.
The rules for Jump are a modifier to the base type and follow all the rules of said type. As such, Jump Infantry follow all the rules for Infantry, including being carried.
Unless you are saying Jump Units without a base type, in which case they do not even have the rule for movement, and you would be correct. That said, I don't know of any Jump Units without a base type. If you find one, please tell me where to find it.
Again, you're being deliberately obtuse it seems
The rules you even quoted state that jump infantry follow the rules for both jumpUNITS as well as Infantry.
Meaning they follow two sets of rules
I have permission to carry infantry
I do not have permission to carry jump units.
Proven, again. Stop ignoring this section of the rules, it's pretty clear that you don't get to ignore jump as a distinction in and of itself
Not at all, I simply disagree with how you are interpreting it. Though stating "Proven" constantly does little to have a good discussion.
First, you are you are stating that even though we are told Jump Infantry follow all rules of both Jump and Infantry, you are putting forwards that they are not subject to a rule unless it calls both types. In other words, if something only affects Jump Units, it could not apply given your reasoning since it would also have to specifically call out the base type as well.
Next, the wording on the two paragraphs for Transport Capacity are radically different in structure and effect.
For the first paragraph:
A transport can carry a single Infantry unit
For the second paragraph:
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/04 21:16:20
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
The least headache and rules-lawyering is to simply follow the obvious RAI that the praetorians can indeed ride along in the dedicated transport on their Army List Entry. Simple. Straightforward.
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
I disagree. The reason why 'embark' is not solely used in the English case is because there is a rules definition that further defines it as only being in the Movement phase. However, the termed 'embarked' is not further defined by the rules and is instead use as a synonym for being carried as it is used in the first paragraph specifically talking about units being carried.
I do agree, it is stupid, but the team at Games Workshop are not one for their technical writing skills. If they did not further define 'embark' in the rules, or made sure to have deployment count as 'embarking' then we wouldn't be in this mess.
Regardless, it seems you missed my earlier post that my argument for RAW is not my HIWPI. That being that Praetorians should be able to be deployed into their Dedicated Transport Night Scythe, but other Jump and Jet Pack Infantry may not without specific exception. My HIWPI argument is that they are the only unit that may select a Dedicated Transport, but unlike other units that can exclude themselves from being carried or embarking by taking extra wargear such as bikes and jump packs, Praetorians have no such options but are already excluded. You could argue that it was just a way to take more Night Scythes, however, I would argue if that was the case, it should have been a special rule to take a Night Scythe as a free slot per Preatorian instead of a Dedicated Transport.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/07/05 00:22:00
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
The least headache and rules-lawyering is to simply follow the obvious RAI that the praetorians can indeed ride along in the dedicated transport on their Army List Entry. Simple. Straightforward.
So GW obviously intended for Command Squads on bikes to be able to ride in their dedicated transport. As such, I can put 5 Very Bulky Bike models in a 6-man capacity Razorback, right? As long as they start the game there of course.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/04 23:35:50
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
The least headache and rules-lawyering is to simply follow the obvious RAI that the praetorians can indeed ride along in the dedicated transport on their Army List Entry. Simple. Straightforward.
So GW obviously intended for Command Squads on bikes to be able to ride in their dedicated transport. As such, I can put 5 Very Bulky Bike models in a 6-man capacity Razorback, right? As long as they start the game there of course.
If they upgrade to bikes, they are no longer infantry but are instead a bike unit. They upgraded themselves into an option that prevents them from riding in the dedicated transport. The option to have a dedicated transport still needs to be on the Army List Entry if they chose not to have bikes. The default command squad can ride along in the dedicated transport. Simple.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/04 23:54:44
Happyjew wrote: So GW obviously intended for Command Squads on bikes to be able to ride in their dedicated transport. As such, I can put 5 Very Bulky Bike models in a 6-man capacity Razorback, right? As long as they start the game there of course.
If they upgrade to bikes, they are no longer infantry but are instead a bike unit. They upgraded themselves into an option that prevents them from riding in the dedicated transport. The option to have a dedicated transport still needs to be on the Army List Entry if they chose not to have bikes. The default command squad can ride along in the dedicated transport. Simple.
Why are you applying a restriction when as you pointed out - the only restriction is that the unit that purchased the transport can start on it.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Happyjew wrote: So GW obviously intended for Command Squads on bikes to be able to ride in their dedicated transport. As such, I can put 5 Very Bulky Bike models in a 6-man capacity Razorback, right? As long as they start the game there of course.
If they upgrade to bikes, they are no longer infantry but are instead a bike unit. They upgraded themselves into an option that prevents them from riding in the dedicated transport. The option to have a dedicated transport still needs to be on the Army List Entry if they chose not to have bikes. The default command squad can ride along in the dedicated transport. Simple.
Why are you applying a restriction when as you pointed out - the only restriction is that the unit that purchased the transport can start on it.
RAW - By upgrading to bikes, they are losing their status as Infantry and have no permissions in any reading of the rule to either embark or be carried by a Transport.
HIWPI - A unit should be able to use a Dedicated Transport with their default wargear. Praetorians are the only unit that can select a Dedicated Transport but cannot embark on their Dedicated Transport. This is a case of Games Workshop failing at writing in multiple ways.
Nilok wrote: My HIWPI argument is that they are the only unit that may select a Dedicated Transport, but unlike other units that can exclude themselves from being carried or embarking by taking extra wargear such as bikes and jump packs, Praetorians have no such options but are already excluded. You could argue that it was just a way to take more Night Scythes, however, I would argue if that was the case, it should have been a special rule to take a Night Scythe as a free slot per Preatorian instead of a Dedicated Transport.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/07/05 00:21:46
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
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). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
Per English, that rule grants broad permission ("the only limitation") for a dedicated transport to carry the unit it was selected with. If you try to limit the praetorians from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met.
So if you try to limit the Command Squad from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/05 01:12:44
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
col_impact wrote:The least headache and rules-lawyering is to simply follow the obvious RAI that the praetorians can indeed ride along in the dedicated transport on their Army List Entry. Simple. Straightforward.
Obvious RAI is that they cannot embark on to their Dedicated Transports and just use it as a call for air support. Simple and Straightforward.
It requires less rules-lawyering to say that don't get on than to say that "Deploying in" or "Carried by" have no relationship to "Embark".
Especially when if you do just "deploy" the unit into the Transport and did not "embark", then they are never "embarked". If they are not "embarked" than a whole host of rules and methods suddenly become unavailable to them.
Nilok wrote:I disagree. The reason why 'embark' is not solely used in the English case is because there is a rules definition that further defines it as only being in the Movement phase. However, the termed 'embarked' is not further defined by the rules and is instead use as a synonym for being carried as it is used in the first paragraph specifically talking about units being carried.
If you think that "embarked" has no relationship to "embark" and does not mean "having gone through the process of embarking" or "at one point did embark upon", especially when you admit that their is no other definition for it, than you are changing rules.
If you want to use it as a synonym for other things you must respect the relationship across the line. To say that being carried by a Transport is being "embarked" is to say that the unit did "embark to be carried" by the Transport. Especially when you have no exact rule translating it any other way.
I do agree it is a synonym. In fact, I've said as such several times by now. However, I'm not so willing to toss away a desired synonym's connection to its root word without direction as some are.
Nilok wrote:I do agree, it is stupid, but the team at Games Workshop are not one for their technical writing skills. If they did not further define 'embark' in the rules, or made sure to have deployment count as 'embarking' then we wouldn't be in this mess.
No argument there, but then, I guess Gate of Infinity and Veil of Darkness are useless since Deep Strike requires a unit to be in Deep Strike Reserves in order to work. Or similarly, instead recognize these rules allow us to bypass those restrictions which will not allow it to work as being implicit, and function normally.
In the case of Embarking, the restrictions for distance to the Transport and being in the Movement Phase are not required when placing a unit in a Transport to be embarked.
Nilok wrote:Regardless, it seems you missed my earlier post that my argument for RAW is not my HIWPI. That being that Praetorians should be able to be deployed into their Dedicated Transport Night Scythe, but other Jump and Jet Pack Infantry may not without specific exception. My HIWPI argument is that they are the only unit that may select a Dedicated Transport, but unlike other units that can exclude themselves by taking extra wargear such as bikes and jump packs, Praetorians have no such options but are already excluded. You could argue that it was just a way to take more Night Scythes, however, I would argue if that was the case, it should have been a special rule to take a Night Scythe as a free slot per Preatorian instead of a Dedicated Transport.
Actually, I DID argue that it was another way to take more Night Scythes. Along with the case of it being a bad cross edition translation which dropped some important features in the Night Scythe.
And there is nothing RAW that gives more permissions to a Dedicated Transport when it comes to putting units on a transport. The only thing that has been presented along those lines is a restriction preventing any other unit being carried by the transport. "May Only" has never been considered permissive and is implicitly restrictive. In fact, "may only" addresses permissions already existent and then limits them. Considering that units being put in to Transports during deployment is not anything new or otherwise restricted than normal, I don't see how it could be granting extra permissions.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Nilok wrote:I disagree. The reason why 'embark' is not solely used in the English case is because there is a rules definition that further defines it as only being in the Movement phase. However, the termed 'embarked' is not further defined by the rules and is instead use as a synonym for being carried as it is used in the first paragraph specifically talking about units being carried.
If you think that "embarked" has no relationship to "embark" and does not mean "having gone through the process of embarking" or "at one point did embark upon", especially when you admit that their is no other definition for it, than you are changing rules.
If you want to use it as a synonym for other things you must respect the relationship across the line. To say that being carried by a Transport is being "embarked" is to say that the unit did "embark to be carried" by the Transport. Especially when you have no exact rule translating it any other way.
I do agree it is a synonym. In fact, I've said as such several times by now. However, I'm not so willing to toss away a desired synonym's connection to its root word without direction as some are.
It has a relation, but only to the root meaning of the original word, sadly I am now rubbings against Tenet 6.
Embark: "go on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Thus the past tense, embarked, is "to be on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Also, as sieGermans said, it is possible to be embarked without embarking. The relationship of the words are not strong enough to say you need one without the other.
sieGermans wrote: A unit can be Embarked without ever Embarking even using standard English:
A baby begins its life embarked in its mother. The baby never undertook an embarking action.
Finally, since the rules are abstracted, even if a rule seems to imply an action takes place before, it is entirely possible to have the second action take place without the first. This is shown as you are never called to embark, in fact you are prevented from doing so in the rules, on Transports prior to the start of the game but you are stilled embarked on said transport, however, I wouldn't doubt there are other actions that have similar messed up timing.
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
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). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
Per English, that rule grants broad permission ("the only limitation") for a dedicated transport to carry the unit it was selected with. If you try to limit the praetorians from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met.
So if you try to limit the Command Squad from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met..
As a bike unit they would no longer have the broad permission to be carried on a transport. Praetorians and other units that follow the infantry unit rules have that broad permission.
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
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). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
Per English, that rule grants broad permission ("the only limitation") for a dedicated transport to carry the unit it was selected with. If you try to limit the praetorians from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met.
So if you try to limit the Command Squad from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met..
As a bike unit they would no longer have the broad permission to be carried on a transport. Praetorians and other units that follow the infantry unit rules have that broad permission.
Why are you applying an extra limitation?
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
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). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
Per English, that rule grants broad permission ("the only limitation") for a dedicated transport to carry the unit it was selected with. If you try to limit the praetorians from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met.
So if you try to limit the Command Squad from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met..
As a bike unit they would no longer have the broad permission to be carried on a transport. Praetorians and other units that follow the infantry unit rules have that broad permission.
Why are you applying an extra limitation?
I am not. They have simply lost their permission. Bike units are not infantry and do not follow the rules for infantry like Jump Infantry does.
No you are applying an extra limitation - you are applying a limitation on the unit type that can embark.
As you pointed out the only limitation has been met - the unit that purchased the transport is on board at the start of the game.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Happyjew wrote: No you are applying an extra limitation - you are applying a limitation on the unit type that can embark.
As you pointed out the only limitation has been met - the unit that purchased the transport is on board at the start of the game.
I have not. Infantry are permitted to be carried on transports. Jump infantry follow the rules for infantry. Are bike units infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
Jump Infantry also follow the rules for Jump units. Are Jump units Infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Happyjew wrote: Jump Infantry also follow the rules for Jump units. Are Jump units Infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
The rules disagree with you.
Spoiler:
Unlike most other unit type
categories, ‘Jump’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it
occurs before another category – commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous
Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
This means that as jump infantry the praetorians have permission to be carried by a transport. Bike units do not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/05 01:26:46
Happyjew wrote: Jump Infantry also follow the rules for Jump units. Are Jump units Infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
The rules disagree with you.
Spoiler:
Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Are you sure? I see in the rule you quoted:
share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules... and then in the second sentence follow the rules for Jump units.
So they follow two sets of rules - Jump unit rules and base type rules.
Does the base type allow for being in transport? Yes. No one is arguing that. Are Jump units allowed in transports? Only if the transport specifically allows it. The base rules do not allow for Jump units to be in transports, and the Night Scythe doesn't override this.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Happyjew wrote: Jump Infantry also follow the rules for Jump units. Are Jump units Infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
The rules disagree with you.
Spoiler:
Unlike most other unit type
categories, ‘Jump’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it
occurs before another category – commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous
Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Are you sure? I see in the rule you quoted:
share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules... and then in the second sentence follow the rules for Jump units.
So they follow two sets of rules - Jump unit rules and base type rules.
Does the base type allow for being in transport? Yes. No one is arguing that. Are Jump units allowed in transports? Only if the transport specifically allows it. The base rules do not allow for Jump units to be in transports, and the Night Scythe doesn't override this.
You are lacking rules.
Following the infantry rules permission is granted for the praetorian to be carried on a transport. Show where that permission is taken away. It's up to you to actively take that permission away. The praetorian gets that permission as infantry. Infantry is their base type.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/05 01:35:43
Happyjew wrote: Jump Infantry also follow the rules for Jump units. Are Jump units Infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
The rules disagree with you.
Spoiler:
Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Are you sure? I see in the rule you quoted:
share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules... and then in the second sentence follow the rules for Jump units.
So they follow two sets of rules - Jump unit rules and base type rules.
Does the base type allow for being in transport? Yes. No one is arguing that. Are Jump units allowed in transports? Only if the transport specifically allows it. The base rules do not allow for Jump units to be in transports, and the Night Scythe doesn't override this.
I did not ask about Jump Infantry, Jump Monstrous Creatures, or Jump Gargantuan Creatures. I asked about Jump units.
Absent specific permission from a vehicle, can a Jump unit be carried by a transport?
Jump Units wrote:'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself.
Asking just for Jump Unit rules is asking an incomplete question, as the rules never refer to a 'Jump Unit' outside the main description and telling us there is no such thing as a 'Jump' unit. This is shown when it clarifies that Jump [Infantry] and Jet Pack Infantry cannot embark on Transport.
In fact, a 'Jump' unit cannot even move, or be legally playing in 40k. However, a Jump Infantry unit, or Jump Monstrous Creature can.
And what does the second to last sentence in the first paragraph for Jump units say? "Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type."
As such, permission has been shown for Infantry units to be carried by transports. No permission has been shown for Jump units to be carried by transports. You must follow both rules. If A has permission and B does not have permission, then AB does not have permission.
Unfortunately, that is an incorrect assessment.
A more accurate statement is thus:
A has permission to be carried and embark.
B follows all rules of A if together
AB thus can be carried, but is restricted from being able to embark.
Infantry can be carried and embark, Jump units follow the rules of their base type, Jump Infantry can be carried but not embark.
If you are saying Jump Infantry cannot be carried because it has 'Jump' in it, you are not following the "Jump Infantry follow all rules of Jump units and Infantry".
Jump Units wrote:Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, but neither do you dozer. It's a discussion, do you understand that concept? It's in the tenets. Your remarks add nothing of any use.
Nilok - it states they follow the rules for Jump UNITS and for infantry
Jump
Units
Jump units have no permission to be carried.
Proven.
The rules for Jump are a modifier to the base type and follow all the rules of said type. As such, Jump Infantry follow all the rules for Infantry, including being carried.
Unless you are saying Jump Units without a base type, in which case they do not even have the rule for movement, and you would be correct. That said, I don't know of any Jump Units without a base type. If you find one, please tell me where to find it.
Again, you're being deliberately obtuse it seems
The rules you even quoted state that jump infantry follow the rules for both jumpUNITS as well as Infantry.
Meaning they follow two sets of rules
I have permission to carry infantry
I do not have permission to carry jump units.
Proven, again. Stop ignoring this section of the rules, it's pretty clear that you don't get to ignore jump as a distinction in and of itself
Not at all, I simply disagree with how you are interpreting it. Though stating "Proven" constantly does little to have a good discussion.
First, you are you are stating that even though we are told Jump Infantry follow all rules of both Jump and Infantry, you are putting forwards that they are not subject to a rule unless it calls both types. In other words, if something only affects Jump Units, it could not apply given your reasoning since it would also have to specifically call out the base type as well.
Next, the wording on the two paragraphs for Transport Capacity are radically different in structure and effect.
For the first paragraph:
A transport can carry a single Infantry unit
For the second paragraph:
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
I believe all of those points have been covered.
If your assessment is correct, any rule that calls for Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, or so on, would have no effect on Jump/Jet Pack Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, or so on and would be immune to them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/05 01:49:27
Show me where Jump units have permission to be carried. You have to satisfy both sets of rules. Or can models charge from an Assault Vehicle the turn they arrive from reserves?
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Happyjew wrote: Show me where Jump units have permission to be carried. You have to satisfy both sets of rules. Or can models charge from an Assault Vehicle the turn they arrive from reserves?
See Nilok's post above yours. The points have been covered in this thread.
Happyjew wrote: Show me where Jump units have permission to be carried. You have to satisfy both sets of rules. Or can models charge from an Assault Vehicle the turn they arrive from reserves?
Your argument breaks many rules affecting Jump/Jet Pack Infantry, and makes Jump/Jet Pack Monstrous Creature immune to special rules such as Monster Hunter and more as stated in my post. The road goes both ways.
I would recommend reviewing your argument to fix these even more massive holes that, may after further review, effectively break the game.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/05 01:55:57
Nilok wrote:
It has a relation, but only to the root meaning of the original word, sadly I am now rubbings against Tenet 6.
Embark: "go on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Thus the past tense, embarked, is "to be on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Also, as sieGermans said, it is possible to be embarked without embarking. The relationship of the words are not strong enough to say you need one without the other.
sieGermans wrote: A unit can be Embarked without ever Embarking even using standard English:
A baby begins its life embarked in its mother. The baby never undertook an embarking action.
Finally, since the rules are abstracted, even if a rule seems to imply an action takes place before, it is entirely possible to have the second action take place without the first. This is shown as you are never called to embark, in fact you are prevented from doing so in the rules, on Transports prior to the start of the game but you are stilled embarked on said transport, however, I wouldn't doubt there are other actions that have similar messed up timing.
Except for several important facts.
The relationship between "embark" and "embarked" has not been redefined in the rulebook. While "embark" has a specific definition in the rulebook, "embarked" has not been changed to mean anything else than either the past tense of "embark" or having the status of "did embark in the past". This really isn't reaching in to Tenet 6 other than just basic common sense.
Indeed, the rules are abstracted, however, even when they are, we tend to see that when restrictions are removed they are either explicit or a matter of impossible timing. Embarking during deployment without having access to a movement phase or having the models within 2" of the entry points would fall under the latter. The ability to embark on to a transport they would not otherwise be able to embark does not fall under either.
As much as you'd like, you cannot separate the relationship in a word's tenses. Being able to separate synonyms, most definitely, as col_impact has done. But the problem with separating the synonyms is that it can come back and bite you in the arse.
I have tried explaining it to you and others, and other than trying to convince me that "embarked" has no relationship with "embark" without actually quoting rules, neither of you have actually done anything to actually prove the points without it being turned in to a complete mess.
As a final note, I told sieGermans my wife would not appreciate being called a boat or a ship, and I would thank you not to make such a reference again. And that is not even considering that it is grossly inaccurate to say a child has boarded their mother when she is impregnated with them through natural means.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/05 03:33:51
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Nilok wrote:
It has a relation, but only to the root meaning of the original word, sadly I am now rubbings against Tenet 6.
Embark: "go on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Thus the past tense, embarked, is "to be on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Also, as sieGermans said, it is possible to be embarked without embarking. The relationship of the words are not strong enough to say you need one without the other.
sieGermans wrote: A unit can be Embarked without ever Embarking even using standard English:
A baby begins its life embarked in its mother. The baby never undertook an embarking action.
Finally, since the rules are abstracted, even if a rule seems to imply an action takes place before, it is entirely possible to have the second action take place without the first. This is shown as you are never called to embark, in fact you are prevented from doing so in the rules, on Transports prior to the start of the game but you are stilled embarked on said transport, however, I wouldn't doubt there are other actions that have similar messed up timing.
Except for several important facts.
The relationship between "embark" and "embarked" has not been redefined in the rulebook. While "embark" has a specific definition in the rulebook, "embarked" has not been changed to mean anything else than either the past tense of "embark" or having the status of "did embark in the past". This really isn't reaching in to Tenet 6 other than just basic common sense.
Indeed, the rules are abstracted, however, even when they are, we tend to see that when restrictions are removed they are either explicit or a matter of impossible timing. Embarking during deployment without having access to a movement phase or having the models within 2" of the entry points would fall under the latter. The ability to embark on to a transport they would not otherwise be able to embark does not fall under either.
As much as you'd like, you cannot separate the relationship in a word's tenses. Being able to separate synonyms, most definitely, as col_impact has done. But the problem with separating the synonyms is that it can come back and bite you in the arse.
I have tried explaining it to you and others, and other than trying to convince me that "embarked" has no relationship with "embark" without actually quoting rules, neither of you have actually done anything to actually prove the points without it being turned in to a complete mess.
As a final note, I told sieGermans my wife would not appreciate being called a boat or a ship, and I would thank you not to make such a reference again. And that is not even considering that it is grossly inaccurate to say a child has boarded their mother when she is impregnated with them through natural means.
I never said it was, which is why this is hitting Tenet 6. To Embark is to board a vehicle, thus to be embarked is to be on a vehicle.
Again, you do not have permission to embark at any time other than the Movement phase. All models however, have the ability to be deployed unless explicitly stated otherwise, which you can do to models to put them inside Transports during deployment. If your statement if true, it is illegal to put units in Transports that are in reserve since they are stated to be embarked, but do not have permission to embark since you can only do so in the Movement phase.
Then we simply have a different view on how the language works. You view the past tense of the word to mean the previous one to have happened (to be embarked means to must have been embarking), while I view the past tense of the word to mean the next meaning (to be embarked means that you are on the vehicle, since it is after getting on it).
I did not see that reply and I meant no disrespect, nor did I know you even had a wife, however, you should be able to see the logic behind it. I will use machines and animals for reference to avoid offending you.
If you build a jet or truck on board a carrier, once assembled, the jet or truck would be embarked on the carrier, but have never performed an embarking since it began there and never existed prior to being embarked. The same is true for a mammal such as a dog, as the puppy is only truly conceived inside the mother and thus embarked within her without ever embarking (I just realized I made a pun).
Regardless, I realize that I have waded too far into real world examples. A far better way to explain it is with computer programming since programming and rules writing are very similar.
The embarking rule states you can only embark during the Movement phase.
The deployment rule for Transports lets you set the flag for your units to embarked in the Transport to avoid breaking the embarking rule.
You now have a unit embarked in a Transport without having to break the embarking rule and embark outside of the Movement phase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/05 04:21:01
The embarking rule states you can only embark during the Movement phase.
The deployment rule for Transports lets you set the flag for your units to embarked in the Transport to avoid breaking the embarking rule.
You now have a unit embarked in a Transport without having to break the embarking rule and embark outside of the Movement phase.
This is a nice articulation of the argument. Well done.
Again, you do not have permission to embark at any time other than the Movement phase. All models however, have the ability to be deployed unless explicitly stated otherwise, which you can do to models to put them inside Transports during deployment. If your statement if true, it is illegal to put units in Transports that are in reserve since they are stated to be embarked, but do not have permission to embark since you can only do so in the Movement phase.
Then we simply have a different view on how the language works. You view the past tense of the word to mean the previous one to have happened (to be embarked means to must have been embarking), while I view the past tense of the word to mean the next meaning (to be embarked means that you are on the vehicle, since it is after getting on it).
I did not see that reply and I meant no disrespect, nor did I know you even had a wife, however, you should be able to see the logic behind it. I will use machines and animals for reference to avoid offending you.
If you build a jet or truck on board a carrier, once assembled, the jet or truck would be embarked on the carrier, but have never performed an embarking since it began there and never existed prior to being embarked. The same is true for a mammal such as a dog, as the puppy is only truly conceived inside the mother and thus embarked within her without ever embarking (I just realized I made a pun).
Regardless, I realize that I have waded too far into real world examples. A far better way to explain it is with computer programming since programming and rules writing are very similar.
The embarking rule states you can only embark during the Movement phase.
The deployment rule for Transports lets you set the flag for your units to embarked in the Transport to avoid breaking the embarking rule.
You now have a unit embarked in a Transport without having to break the embarking rule and embark outside of the Movement phase.
All this, and you still have yet to address the basic principles of translation and assuming connections when you are not allowing others.
You say that you can disconnect "embark" and "embarked" without ever mentioning the permission to do so. You say that you can have other words synonymize with "embarked", but they cannot be done so for "embark", yet, have provided no quotes to support this. It has been said that a unit can be "embarked" on a Transport while ignoring its Transport Capacity, yet have yet to provide actual permission stating one can ignore the Capacity. A lot of what you are saying actually boils down to, "it doesn't say I can't", just because the limits are not otherwise expressed in every case.
So, again, I am telling you, you can choose to ignore the relationships between the words and how GW has actually used them all together, but it will break down and cause havoc in the system.
To go back to your analogy, a proper programmer would have provided a check for that Embarked flag to check if the unit was qualified to be in there and would have been able to Embark the Transport just as if it was the Movement Phase (Zooming Flyers being granted a partial exception here).
Otherwise, I could put Terminators in Rhinos, full-sized Crusader Squads in Razorbacks, and IG Blob Squads in Chimeras, just by putting the Transports in Reserve. Having units Embarked in Transports in Reserve has that check even less than even Deploying In to the Transport does, and it doesn't require any fancy words or anything like that. It just requires one simple concept, "embarked" doesn't mean that "one did embark previously", it means instead "I put it in there".
TL;DR: So, no. I do not have permission to separate the concept of "embarked" from "embark", even while considering it just a "flag" condition, so I will continue to treat it as connected. As such, I will continue to treat every instance of putting a unit in to a Transport as "embarking", even during Deployment (it was during a pre-deployment movement phase that the unit had, yeah), so that the standards will be maintained across the board and consistently through the game. Otherwise, the system breaks down with units not being able to get out of the Transports or allowing completely inappropriate units to be embarked that would never otherwise be able to have done so.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Again, you do not have permission to embark at any time other than the Movement phase. All models however, have the ability to be deployed unless explicitly stated otherwise, which you can do to models to put them inside Transports during deployment. If your statement if true, it is illegal to put units in Transports that are in reserve since they are stated to be embarked, but do not have permission to embark since you can only do so in the Movement phase.
Then we simply have a different view on how the language works. You view the past tense of the word to mean the previous one to have happened (to be embarked means to must have been embarking), while I view the past tense of the word to mean the next meaning (to be embarked means that you are on the vehicle, since it is after getting on it).
I did not see that reply and I meant no disrespect, nor did I know you even had a wife, however, you should be able to see the logic behind it. I will use machines and animals for reference to avoid offending you.
If you build a jet or truck on board a carrier, once assembled, the jet or truck would be embarked on the carrier, but have never performed an embarking since it began there and never existed prior to being embarked. The same is true for a mammal such as a dog, as the puppy is only truly conceived inside the mother and thus embarked within her without ever embarking (I just realized I made a pun).
Regardless, I realize that I have waded too far into real world examples. A far better way to explain it is with computer programming since programming and rules writing are very similar.
The embarking rule states you can only embark during the Movement phase.
The deployment rule for Transports lets you set the flag for your units to embarked in the Transport to avoid breaking the embarking rule.
You now have a unit embarked in a Transport without having to break the embarking rule and embark outside of the Movement phase.
All this, and you still have yet to address the basic principles of translation and assuming connections when you are not allowing others.
You say that you can disconnect "embark" and "embarked" without ever mentioning the permission to do so. You say that you can have other words synonymize with "embarked", but they cannot be done so for "embark", yet, have provided no quotes to support this. It has been said that a unit can be "embarked" on a Transport while ignoring its Transport Capacity, yet have yet to provide actual permission stating one can ignore the Capacity. A lot of what you are saying actually boils down to, "it doesn't say I can't", just because the limits are not otherwise expressed in every case.
So, again, I am telling you, you can choose to ignore the relationships between the words and how GW has actually used them all together, but it will break down and cause havoc in the system.
To go back to your analogy, a proper programmer would have provided a check for that Embarked flag to check if the unit was qualified to be in there and would have been able to Embark the Transport just as if it was the Movement Phase (Zooming Flyers being granted a partial exception here).
Otherwise, I could put Terminators in Rhinos, full-sized Crusader Squads in Razorbacks, and IG Blob Squads in Chimeras, just by putting the Transports in Reserve. Having units Embarked in Transports in Reserve has that check even less than even Deploying In to the Transport does, and it doesn't require any fancy words or anything like that. It just requires one simple concept, "embarked" doesn't mean that "one did embark previously", it means instead "I put it in there".
TL;DR: So, no. I do not have permission to separate the concept of "embarked" from "embark", even while considering it just a "flag" condition, so I will continue to treat it as connected. As such, I will continue to treat every instance of putting a unit in to a Transport as "embarking", even during Deployment (it was during a pre-deployment movement phase that the unit had, yeah), so that the standards will be maintained across the board and consistently through the game. Otherwise, the system breaks down with units not being able to get out of the Transports or allowing completely inappropriate units to be embarked that would never otherwise be able to have done so.
A proper programmer would try, however, as programming is usually done by many people that can not always be the case depending how the other people code the program. In this case, Games Workshop did not 'code' the game in such a sensible way.
This would be similar to someone coding the Embark class to rely on something in the Movement phase class, then the guy working on the Deployment class wouldn't be able to use the Embark class without also loading the Movement phase class and all of its required classes and instead is forced to make a work around based on the legal carry capacity of the vehicle, which would be the flags for Infantry and less than or equal to the Transport Capacity.
Your argument for having a max sized squad of Crusaders is a fallacy. It is undermined by the fact they exceed the maximum Transport Capacity of the vehicle which has nothing to do with embarking, so they could not even be legally deployed or embarked there, regardless of which side of the argument you are on.
So your argument is to ignore the rule stated the clearest in this discussion, "Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase." If you are going to follow RAW, which it sounds like you have been arguing, as closely as possible, you are actually breaking the rule since there is no Movement phase, or even movement during deployment. If that is what you are really arguing, you could just as easily say you could embark in the Shooting Phase by using a Run move if you are ignore that rule.
The idea of embarked units not being able to disembark due to never embarking is a concept wholly constructed by yourself, and is not present in the 'code' of the game, as they state in deployment, "Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity." Never is it stated that they 'embark', but instead are simply there. As I have stated, it is possible to be embarked without ever embarking in the real world.
That all said, you have never said if you are arguing RAW or HIWPI and would like to know your actual stance outside of this thought exercise.
