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.

We've probably passed the useful discussion phase. It's unclear to me. If someone tried this against me, I could not give him a solid explanation as to why he can't do it.

Love to see it in an FAQ.

Drager wrote:
Yes. The passengers are deployed on the vehicle. Not ambushing. I understand your argument I simply disagree. Do you understand mine?

I understand your reasoning but don't believe it's possible. Whilst the potential pssengers have permission to be in a Transport on the board, nothing gives them permission to be off the board. To think otherwise is to allow the various Psyker Taxi / Ogryn Megabus shenanigans. I don't believe RAW allows that, and I highly doubt it was intended RAI as they'd not limit to "Three Tallarn units" if they meant "see how much you can stuff in a Transport!"

By the way if the FAQ does allow it I'm coining "Ogryn Megabus" as a thing right here.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Drager wrote:
Yes. The passengers are deployed on the vehicle. Not ambushing. I understand your argument I simply disagree. Do you understand mine?

I understand your reasoning but don't believe it's possible. Whilst the potential pssengers have permission to be in a Transport on the board, nothing gives them permission to be off the board. To think otherwise is to allow the various Psyker Taxi / Ogryn Megabus shenanigans. I don't believe RAW allows that, and I highly doubt it was intended RAI as they'd not limit to "Three Tallarn units" if they meant "see how much you can stuff in a Transport!"

By the way if the FAQ does allow it I'm coining "Ogryn Megabus" as a thing right here.

Heck yea. I'll be loading mine up with mordan units that can target characters

It doesn't matter whether they're inside the transport. You are mistaking 'deployment choice' with number of 'units.'

Taking your "The passengers are deployed on the vehicle" sentence, switch the word "passenger" with "units," as passengers undoubtedly units.

...the units are deployed on the vehicle.

Clearly, the units embarked on the vehicle still count towards the unit count, regardless of their current locale.

Ambush allows up to three tallarn units to be placed into tactical reserves, not three tallarn deployment choices. It really can't be any more clearer.

 zedsdead wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Drager wrote:
Yes. The passengers are deployed on the vehicle. Not ambushing. I understand your argument I simply disagree. Do you understand mine?

I understand your reasoning but don't believe it's possible. Whilst the potential pssengers have permission to be in a Transport on the board, nothing gives them permission to be off the board. To think otherwise is to allow the various Psyker Taxi / Ogryn Megabus shenanigans. I don't believe RAW allows that, and I highly doubt it was intended RAI as they'd not limit to "Three Tallarn units" if they meant "see how much you can stuff in a Transport!"

By the way if the FAQ does allow it I'm coining "Ogryn Megabus" as a thing right here.

Heck yea. I'll be loading mine up with mordan units that can target characters

Also coining "Mordian Megabus" and "The Lascannon Express" just in case...

Just got home and read Cloudstrike. Specifically allows this, which indicates GW doesn't have a problem with the concept. I realize that both sides probably think that the fact it is already allowed strengthens their argument, but at the least it says GW doesn't think it's a big deal.

xmbk wrote:
Just got home and read Cloudstrike. Specifically allows this, which indicates GW doesn't have a problem with the concept. I realize that both sides probably think that the fact it is already allowed strengthens their argument, but at the least it says GW doesn't think it's a big deal.

No. Cloudstrike is a strategem that affects a single vehicle with fly keyword. It goes on to describe what the affected vehicle may do, if it is also a transport.

Ambush is a stratagem that allows deepstrike of three units that couldnt deepstrike otherwise. The three units may be deployed in a single drop if one of the three units was a transport.

There is no room for interpretation. It is a rare case of concise wording GW has brought forth.

Again, it's easy to see support for what we believe. Cloudstrike affects 1 model for 1 CP, but can be purchased multiple times. So 3 CP affects 3 units, just like Ambush. More importantly, for 1 CP it allows 12 Spiritseer (or any chars) to DS with the transport. Hard to argue that GW believes this is an abuse for Primaris psykers (or Ogryns) when they explicitly allow it for Eldar.

Truly, it's not exactly the same. But the close similarities make it easy to see why some believe it was intended for Ambush to also work like this. And again, the Designer's Commentary explicitly allows it, by stating that units in transports do not count as deployed.

If someone took an infantry unit with Chimera, most people would count that as 1 of the 3 ambushers. Arguing that it's 2 seems pedantic and wrong, to me.

Cloudstrike is irrelevant to the Tallarn Ambush discussion. All it does by bringing it up is support the case that the Stratatgem would need specific permission to embark non-Tallarn units in any Ambushing vehicles. So it doesn't say what you want it to are help your case for the Ogryn Megabus, sorry. Of course GW "don't have a problem with the concept" in a Stratagem specifically worded to circumvent permissions on what can set up where. The Tallarn Ambush also has special permissions... none of them involve allowing more than 3 units or any non-Tallarn passengers. Really, it's wriggling and twisting to make rules fit to say otherwise.

On your last point:

Arguing that a Chimera plus an infantry unit is 2 deployment drops would be wrong. It's one drop.

Arguing that a Chimera plus an infantry unit is 2 units is demonstrably correct. Arguing two units are 1 is the erroneous take. 1 + 1 very much equals 2.

So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.

I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.

Would love to see it in an FAQ.

xmbk wrote:
So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.

I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.

Would love to see it in an FAQ.

I've addressed and refuted the counter-arguments already so won't repeat them - I understand the reasonings but disagree with them. I also don't think GW need to FAQ that 1+1=2 but there you go.

xmbk wrote:
So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.

I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.

Would love to see it in an FAQ.

Yes that exactly correct. The way GW seems to want it is that the strat effects 3 units only. So a Tallern squad deployed in a chimera would be 2 of the 3 choices.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

xmbk wrote:
So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.

I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.

Would love to see it in an FAQ.

I've addressed and refuted the counter-arguments already so won't repeat them - I understand the reasonings but disagree with them. I also don't think GW need to FAQ that 1+1=2 but there you go.

You haven't addressed the fact that the Designer's Commentary specifically tells you not to count troops on transports as deployments. The fact that they are units for the purpose of Ambush is irrelevant, because they aren't placed in reserve during deployment.

The fact that you think this is a simple 1+1=2 tells me you don't understand it. I've been in these discussions more times than I can remember. Sometimes the ruling agreed with me, sometimes it didn't. But the people who believe they "clearly understand GW's intent" are wrong 100% of the time on these topics.

xmbk wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

xmbk wrote:
So you'd argue that an infantry unit in a Chimera is 2 of your 3 Ambush units? I think that's silly.

I understand where your coming from. GW's history of consistency with wording doesn't really help your case, but I agree you have a case. I do think you are ignoring the counter arguments, but that's your prerogative.

Would love to see it in an FAQ.

I've addressed and refuted the counter-arguments already so won't repeat them - I understand the reasonings but disagree with them. I also don't think GW need to FAQ that 1+1=2 but there you go.

You haven't addressed the fact that the Designer's Commentary specifically tells you not to count troops on transports as deployments. The fact that they are units for the purpose of Ambush is irrelevant, because they aren't placed in reserve during deployment.

The fact that you think this is a simple 1+1=2 tells me you don't understand it. I've been in these discussions more times than I can remember. Sometimes the ruling agreed with me, sometimes it didn't. But the people who believe they "clearly understand GW's intent" are wrong 100% of the time on these topics.

For deployment, no, but they are still a unit. How many units are you allowed to deploy? Three, Tallarn ones. Does adding more non-Tallarn units exceed that? Yes.

You need to comply with all rules that are applicable. But I covered this in earlier posts using RAW.

I can't really repeat this in any different ways now. Trying to staple rules together to make a workaround doesn't work. The simple "Three Tallarn units" kills most of the attempted arguments stone dead, even without venturing anywhere near intent. RAW, how many units is "Three Tallarn units"? Does that honestly need this length of thread and an FAQ?? We know how the "Is zero inches less than five inches?" worked out...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

For deployment, no, but they are still a unit. How many units are you allowed to deploy?

You directly contradict yourself here. They are not a unit for deployment purposes, but count towards the Tallarn deployment limitation?

Your argument is logically similar to those who said 0 is not less than 5.

xmbk wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

For deployment, no, but they are still a unit. How many units are you allowed to deploy?

You directly contradict yourself here. They are not a unit for deployment purposes, but count towards the Tallarn deployment limitation?

Your argument is logically similar to those who said 0 is not less than 5.

You're not following.

Deployment drops are different to units. If you read my post that way there is no contradiction - indeed it's how we're told the game operates.

Multiple units can be a single 'drop' (colloquial term) for deployment purposes, but they are still multiple units for other rules purposes. For example, a Chimera is a unit, the officer and Infantry Squad in it are two units. One drop, three units. Following? You need to get this logic or my post won't read right.

Take the Psyker Party Bus idea... let's say you intend to Ambush:

1 Chimera (Tallarn)
2 Officers (Tallarn)
10 Psykers (auxilia)

That's one deployment choice, aka one 'drop'.

It's also 13 units, and 10 of them aren't Tallarn. Therefore you couldn't ambush with this Party Bus. Sorry.

You are ignoring the Designer's Commentary. The units aren't being deployed in Reserve, so they aren't part of Ambush. That's the key point.

Luckily, I don't see how this can be powergamed, and your feared Ogryn bus is already legal to just chug across the board. So I'm out, looking forward to the FAQ.

xmbk wrote:
You are ignoring the Designer's Commentary.

At any rate, you are getting frustrated and rude. Luckily, I don't see how this can be powergamed, and your feared Ogryn bus is already legal to just chug across the board. So I'm out, looking forward to the FAQ.

Please explain then. I don't get what you're saying. You're saying that e.g. 13 units = 3 units, which is absurd, and that units can board whatever wherever they like despite Dataslate rules being absent. Show me a case and lets discuss. Otherwise there's no point posting.

How is that absurd, if Eldar can do it? You think the Eldar text is making an exception, I think it's a clarification.

Got no problem with your opinion, just think it's silly to claim certainty.

xmbk wrote:
How is that absurd, if Eldar can do it? You think the Eldar text is making an exception, I think it's a clarification.

Got no problem with your opinion, just think it's silly to claim certainty.

I think the Eldar text grants permission, which the Tallarn strategem does not. But I will agree that there's enough ambiguity that it should be clarified in a FAQ.

The idea of a Stormlord with 18 HWT (1 + 6 units) rolling in and unloading off of it's rear deck is somewhat amusing.

xmbk wrote:
How is that absurd, if Eldar can do it? You think the Eldar text is making an exception, I think it's a clarification.

Got no problem with your opinion, just think it's silly to claim certainty.

If the text doesn't appear on the AM Strat in the AM book why do you think it applies if it's in the Aeldari Codex? It's not relevant to discuss in this 'bespoke rules' edition.

Ulfhednar_42 wrote:

xmbk wrote:
How is that absurd, if Eldar can do it? You think the Eldar text is making an exception, I think it's a clarification.

Got no problem with your opinion, just think it's silly to claim certainty.

I think the Eldar text grants permission, which the Tallarn strategem does not. But I will agree that there's enough ambiguity that it should be clarified in a FAQ.

The idea of a Stormlord with 18 HWT (1 + 6 units) rolling in and unloading off of it's rear deck is somewhat amusing.

It can already do that, just not with deepstriking. Half of them can even fire without unloading.

xmbk wrote:
Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?

Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?

xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.

 zedsdead wrote:

xmbk wrote:
Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?

Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?

xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.

Says the person ignoring the rules and making up rules to support their argument.

I answered this in the literal first reply and you've dragged it on to 3 pages.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:

xmbk wrote:
Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?

Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?

xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.

Says the person ignoring the rules and making up rules to support their argument.

I answered this in the literal first reply and you've dragged it on to 3 pages.

and you answered it wrong.

but your right...

i made up drop pod assault
i made up cloudstrike
i made up the Tallern Strat that doesnt allow units inside to go into Ambush
i made up the abilities portion of the dataslates

none of these "rules" support your position.
All i hear is a bunch of GW..shuduh, coulduh woulduh and GW ment it this way and that... from you guys.

The argument that has been put forward to allow it is that passengers are not ambushing. So 3 units ambush X units are deployed on a vehicle. These are not ambushing just because the vehicle is. This is why the 1+1 = 2 argument missed the point. 1x + 1y still only had 1x.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:

xmbk wrote:
Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?

Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?

xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.

Says the person ignoring the rules and making up rules to support their argument.

I answered this in the literal first reply and you've dragged it on to 3 pages.

You answered incorrectly. And here you are with the insults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
The argument that has been put forward to allow it is that passengers are not ambushing. So 3 units ambush X units are deployed on a vehicle. These are not ambushing just because the vehicle is. This is why the 1+1 = 2 argument missed the point. 1x + 1y still only had 1x.

Aye, if you need algebra to solve how many units "Three Tallarn units" is then something is wrong.

 zedsdead wrote:

xmbk wrote:
Can a Tallarn Stormlord Ambush with Ogryns on board?

Also, is there a limit to the number of times you can buy Ambush?

xmbk...did you create this thread because you were interested in a clarification or to try to convince everyone else your opinion of it ? because i have to be honest. there really doesnt seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.

Agreed. I wondered if there was something I was missing. Couple of good points, but now we're just at the silly namecalling stage.

Cloudstrike specifically states the transport can carry units inside. It is an explicit statement what the transport can do when the stratagem gets used.

While GW is largely inconsistent with the contradictions, they reuse reworded phrases for rules that work the same (i.e. deepsrike - during deployment... it is set up [enter locale here].). If ambush stratagem allowed you to discount embarked units from its 3 unit cap, the stratagem would have included something along the lines of 'if this stratagem is used on a transport, all units embarked inside it remain so...'

The cloudstrike line is reminder text, the core rules already cover it.