Embarked models and tactical reserves

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.

**Xboom3000**

The problem of units inside transports counting towards stuff came up in another rule and it is a problem here too.

In the tactical reserves rule it states that at least half the units in your army must be set up on the battlefield.

In this example lets say we have a Valkyrie, Infantry squad and 2 scion squads in the army.

I set up the scions in reserves and the valkyrie with the inf squad inside on the battlefield.

Is this legal? In the transport rules it states this:
"When you set up a transport, units can start the battle embarked
within it instead of being set up separately – declare what units are
embarked inside the transport when you set it up. "

What do you think?

**Mr. Shine**

RAW this may be an issue. In practice nobody plays it as such.

**Xboom3000**

Mr. Shine wrote:
RAW this may be an issue. In practice nobody plays it as such.

So which way you think it is? I've played it as legal up until now, but now I'm not sure.

**Mr. Shine**

Just as I say, it may be a RAW issue, but if so it's one that seems obvious is not intended and should not be played strictly as such.

**JohnnyHell**

Most folk count stuff that is in a transport as 'being on the board' for purposes of Tactical Reserves, though not for things like Orders/Psychic Phase etc. (as per normal Transports rules). You don't magically die if you don't get out of your Chimera by end of Turn 3, either... being in a Transport is not being in Tactical Reserves. It doesn't have the flexibility those units do and is clearly not the intent of that bunch of rules.

**JinxDragon**

It is just a case of Games Workshop being Games Workshop... raise your hand if your surprised that an interaction between Embarked Units and another Rule has caused wonky results.
As others have pointed out - it would be rare to find a player that wants to apply penalties to Units that clearly did not go into 'Reserves.'

**Xboom3000**

JinxDragon wrote:
It is just a case of Games Workshop being Games Workshop... raise your hand if your surprised that an interaction between Embarked Units and another Rule has caused wonky results.
As others have pointed out - it would be rare to find a player that wants to apply penalties to Units that clearly did not go into 'Reserves.'

I'm just curious why most people seem to think they are on the battlefield for the purposes of this rule if they also think they are not on the battlefield for another rule (referring to our discussion on the sudden death)? I'm on the side of they are on the battlefield and the example I gave is legal, but it is quite unclear in my mind.

**JohnnyHell**

Take a unit embarked in a Chimera.

They're on the battlefield in a tank.

Not driving around the flank of the battlefield, off-camera.

Not waiting in space to teleport to the battlefield.

That's the distinction. They're a closed hatch away from the dirt and bullets. Not a flexible tactical intervention in waiting.

True Reserves have tactical flexibility, and the 'end of Turn 3 destroyed' rule is there to stop you keeping 6 units to teleport onto all objectives on Turn 5 to win, for example.

Regarding Boots on the Ground from the other thread, are they on the ground?

**JinxDragon**

Embarking itself:
Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport.
- Transport

Because we do not set them up 'on the battlefield' but go straight to being set up 'Embarked,' and because other Units are removed from the Battlefield when they become 'Embarked'
How do you conclude they are, or ever where, on the Battlefield using the Rules provided?

The reason why we consider this 'Rule as Written conclusion' to be an unintentional error is simply due to the fact this leads to some broken interactions. It isn't just this one Rule related to Deployment being flagged for the oddities it causes, there is at least three Deployment related situations where this strict 'on the battlefield' mentality causes odd things to happen. One of which, involving how we go about counting Units that split into multiple smaller Units after being Set up, made it into a Frequently Asked Question where the answer threw out the 'Rule as Written conclusion' and sided with 'common sense' answer of: 1 Set-up, thus 1 unit for the count.

The rule being discussed is simply that poorly written, so thank you very much Game Workshop.

**JohnnyHell**

Because the tank is on the battlefield and the dudes are inside. They are not Tactical Reserves by the definition of that term or even by sheer logic.

Please tell me you wouldn't argue that Chimera occupants auto-die at the end of Turn 3?

**JinxDragon**

If we where playing by a strict 'as written' I surely would, but you would have even bigger problems then this one.
I would also prevent you from firing Assault weapons after Advancing, Require you to measure movement over Hills using stupid mechanics, likely try to levitate my Units straight up into the air and all sorts of other completely bat-**** insane conclusions that also stem from a pure 'as written' reading of these Rules. Hell, I might even decide to be the ultimate **** and point out a problem I tried to bring up in past editions that simply couldn't be grasped by even the people here: We, technically, lack instructions telling us how to go about Moving Models. Sure we have permission to Move, but it has always been up to the players to already know how we Move pieces over a board....

Or maybe, just maybe, I am part of the group that has always stated it is impossible to play this mess of a game using the strict Written Rule.

**JohnnyHell**

Yeah, then I'm out of this discussion, as you're not basing anything on actually playing the game.

You'd also be wrong RAW, by the way, as embarking is demonstrably not being placed in Tactical Reserves, so you're not even doing RAW correctly.

**JinxDragon**

Indeed,
I do not discuss these Rules based on how I would prefer the game to function on the tabletop, not without first stating that fact.
I am more curious how the game believes it functions on the tabletop... because it is a wonderful broken mess that makes me laugh!

**Cream Tea**

If all I have left is a Stormraven with 10 Tactical Marines in it, do I lose the game? It sounds like most would say no.

If all I have left is a Drop Pod with 10 Tactical Marines in it, which hasn't arrived yet, do I lose the game? I think almost everyone would say yes.

But in both cases I have a unit embarked on something, and embarked units aren't physically present where their transport is, they just have a sort of "bond" to it until they choose to, or are forced to, disembark.

**JohnnyHell**

JinxDragon wrote:
Indeed,
I do not discuss these Rules based on how I would prefer the game to function on the tabletop, not without first stating that fact.
I am more curious how the game believes it functions on the tabletop... because it is a wonderful broken mess that makes me laugh!

This makes a lot of your input unhelpful for anyone discussing with a view to actually playing the game, unfortunately. :-(

**JinxDragon**

I disagree,
We must first be able to recognize when a strict 'Rule as Written conclusion' will lead to an unexpected resolution before we can even begin to convince our Opponents that our way is indeed better.
An argument consisting of 'Some guy on the internet told me it works differently' will not sway Opponents, but being able to point to several broken outcomes before asking 'do you think the Authors intended for this...?'

**skchsan**

I'm not the author, but I think the intent for the rules for tactical reserves were probably written with the game 'breakers' and 'riggers' in mind. Take for example:

A LR crusader is deployed at start carring 16 cheap, single units. Therefore, I can hold 17 10 man terminators in reserve

A valkyrie in landing pad, with 12 psykers embarked. Since I have 13 units on the battlefield, I can hold 13 units in reserve.

Obviously both of the above would be ridiculous and you would make a point against it if your opponent somehow broke the game and practically brought back null deployment.

I'd think of it as lesser of the evils and go with the RAW. If a contradiction in the rule book makes you a list that you look back and giggle at the thought of using it on some poor soul, you probably should not interpret it the way you are for the sake of keeping the game fun.

To get back to the point, the most RAW you can play that deployment would be to deploy the inf squad un-embarked with the valkyrie and put two scions in reserve, but how you play may differ from HIWPI

If you were to interpret it RAI, I think the most agreeable argument could be to understand the statement as 'at least half of your units must be "deployed as normal" instead of " must be set up on the battlefield"