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.

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

Since when do rules have 'reminder text'? They don't. It's a rule giving permissions. The Drop Pod also has a similar permission rule, not 'reminder text'. 'Reminder text' simply isn't a thing.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

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

Since when do rules have 'reminder text'? They don't. It's a rule giving permissions. The Drop Pod also has a similar permission rule, not 'reminder text'. 'Reminder text' simply isn't a thing.

GW has added 'reminders' to the rules for many, many years.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

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

Since when do rules have 'reminder text'? They don't. It's a rule giving permissions. The Drop Pod also has a similar permission rule, not 'reminder text'. 'Reminder text' simply isn't a thing.

GW has added 'reminders' to the rules for many, many years.

This is not that. ;-) And the Aeldari Stratagem is *still* irrelevant to this thread.

Here is an EXAMPLE of GW putting a reminder in the rules from ack in 5th edition.

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.

So if Cloudstrike said something specific, it supported you, and if it didn't, it still supported you? It doesn't work like that. It has specific language to allow passengers. Tallarn ambush doesn't. In order for passengers to go into reserves with Tallarn, you have to count them as one of the units that goes into reserves. All the Designer's commentary says is that they don't count as a separate deployment choice; it doesn't say they don't count as a unit going into reserve. If the limitation on going into reserve is 3 Tallarn units, then you must select 3 Tallarn units and no non-Tallarn units to go into reserve. You haven't been given permission there to have a non-Tallarn unit go into reserve, only Tallarn units.

 Ghaz wrote:
Here is an EXAMPLE of GW putting a reminder in the rules from ack in 5th edition.

Even less relevant to an 8th rules discussion...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Here is an EXAMPLE of GW putting a reminder in the rules from ack in 5th edition.

Even less relevant to an 8th rules discussion...

Relevant since you asked when do rules have reminders and claiming that reminders 'isn't a thing'.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Here is an EXAMPLE of GW putting a reminder in the rules from ack in 5th edition.

Even less relevant to an 8th rules discussion...

Relevant since you asked when do rules have reminders and claiming that reminders 'isn't a thing'.

If we're scoring those kind of points, sigh, congrats, you win one. But come on, let's try and keep to the current rules if we're to get anywhere! 5th edition rules are simply irrelevant in an 8th discussion. That's surely self-evident.

Now, if anyone has any others ways to try and claim "Three Tallarn units" somehow *actually* means "Three Tallarn units plus as many dudes as you can cram in a Transport" let's 'ave 'em! Else this thread is pretty much done with those three words.

"Three Tallan units".

People give GW flak for sloppy writing but on this occasion the wording is pretty damn simple and precise.

There's literally nothing rules wise stopping me from setting a transport in ambush, and then declaring I have other unit embarked inside it. Literally nothing. Any argument otherwise is grasping at straws.

 Stus67 wrote:
There's literally nothing rules wise stopping me from setting a transport in ambush, and then declaring I have other unit embarked inside it. Literally nothing. Any argument otherwise is grasping at straws.

As long as that unit is Tallarn, you're right!

Clarify this for me OP:

1) Are you trying to fill up a transport that has been set up in 'ambush' deep strike locale, with units that were already in tactical reserves by other means?
2) Is this about setting up a transport that has been filled up with non-tallarn units, to be set up in the 'ambush' deep strike locale?

If it's about 1, it's redundant as regular deep strike is more versatile and flexible as ambush only allows you to deploy at the board edge. However, if this IS your concern, yes I do agree with you that it is within grey area that needs to be clarified.
If it's about 2, this is clearly not permitted as per wording of the rule.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Here is an EXAMPLE of GW putting a reminder in the rules from ack in 5th edition.

Even less relevant to an 8th rules discussion...

Relevant since you asked when do rules have reminders and claiming that reminders 'isn't a thing'.

Funny how the king of "let's ignore RaW and play RaI" is ignoring RaI.

Rules have always had bits of reminder or not-strictly-rules in them. Take the various bodyguard rules from 8th as an example.

This is more of general vs specifics than a RAW vs RAI argunent.

Cloudstrike permits you put a flyer vehicle into reserves. Furthermore, it SPECIFICALLY permits you to bring the passengers with the vehicle if the said vehicle is a transport. Ambush stops at permission to bring three units into reserves. No further specifics are given beyond the given permission.

Its not a reminder text. It specifically further permits certain actions.

 skchsan wrote:
Furthermore, it SPECIFICALLY permits you to bring the passengers with the vehicle if the said vehicle is a transport.

Which, as has been shown multiple times, is unnecessary because the core rules already let you. It is reminder text.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Furthermore, it SPECIFICALLY permits you to bring the passengers with the vehicle if the said vehicle is a transport.

Which, as has been shown multiple times, is unnecessary because the core rules already let you. It is reminder text.

It's been stated by you, not proven. Big difference.

And you still haven't addressed the restriction to "Three Tallarn units". Which is inescapably RAW not RAI, very simple, and you're blithely ignoring. Also, stow the baiting/trolling, dear chap.

I put it to GW on Facebook anyway so let's see if it gets picked up to FAQ how many units "Three Tallarn units" is.

As I said earlier, the units deployed in the transport are not ambushing or in ambush reserve themselves, they are deployed in the transport, so it doesn't break the restriction. I know you disagree with that assertion.

On a personal note, I honestly can't see any other way to read it and if I tried to restrict the IG player to not taking extra units in the transport I'd feel like I was cheating, so I would always allow them to do it as, as far as I can tell it is strict raw.

I haven't really got anything else to my argument than the syllogism I pointed out earlier. I then tried to clarify using algebra to make it clear what I meant to people who didn't seem to get what I was saying. That didn't go over well. I'm going to assume people understand my stance at this point and simply disagree.

I don't find the arguments for disallowing this to have made their case and as such I am not persuaded to their view. As of right now I am convinced that the RAW is ambiguous enough that they may have a case somewhere.

RAW: My reading is Tallarn can take extra passengers, but I could be wrong.
HIWPI: As RAW above.
RAI: No clue.

Interesting analogy:

No one argues that units that can't Fly may fly while they are in a Wave Serpent, because the transport specifically says it can carry said troops.

Yet there is significant disagreement that a unit that can't Ambush may do so while in a transport that specifically says it can carry said troops.

Seems like a contradiction to me. GW has been pretty consistent in how they have treated units in a transport.

Needs an FAQ this. It can be read either way without too much of a stretch.

The stretch from one side is that the first thing the stratagem tells you is that this applies to "three tallarn units". So deciding you can now apply it to anything else aside that (e.g. two tallarn units, a tallarn transport, and the stuff inside the transport) is breaking the rules.

The stretch from the other side is that whenever you "set up" a transport (the words used both in the stratagem and deployment) you are always allowed as per BRB to put other units inside it... so why would this stratagem break that rule?

As someone who is building and painting Tallarn right now... I honestly think it's the weaker version, where only three Tallarn units can ever be ambushed and nothing else... but before this thread I thought it was the other way around.

Needs to be FAQ'd.

So aside from the fighting:

Aren't units deployed "in" places? I know the game has been quite specific lately even about stuff in "reserve" - there is no more reserve. Sometimes they're deployed in High Orbit, or in teleportariums, or in valkyries, etc. Either way, it is always very specific about where something is deployed.

A unit has permission to deploy "in a transport."

One could make the argument that the units aren't "in reserve" or "in ambush" but instead "in a transport."

So if you were following a logical chain, it would be:

1) I deploy these units in this transport.

2) I use the stratagem to put said transport in Ambush.

Then the opponent can say: "but those units are In Reserve" and then you can say "No, they're in a Transport. They can't actually be in reserve, as they have no special rule saying they can set up anywhere other than the transport or on the board."

And then the typical counter-argument could be: "well, the transport is in reserve!"

Presumably, the answer is "Yes, yes it is. But where the transport is has nothing to do with the units inside. The transport could have a special rule letting it deploy in the enemy DZ, and units could still deploy in it. Because they aren't deploying in the enemy's DZ, they are deploying in a transport."

Yes, that's a totally fair reading of the rules.

And I don't think anyone is arguing you can't put a Tallarn infantry squad in a Tallarn chimera and infiltrate that, plus ONE other thing...

However the stratagem's wording of "select three tallarn units" *could* be seen to overrule the general ability to make the transported unit effectively "disappear" for deployment purposes.

 Silentz wrote:
Yes, that's a totally fair reading of the rules.

And I don't think anyone is arguing you can't put a Tallarn infantry squad in a Tallarn chimera and infiltrate that, plus ONE other thing...

However the stratagem's wording of "select three tallarn units" *could* be seen to overrule the general ability to make the transported unit effectively "disappear" for deployment purposes.

But I thought transports (as a general rule) have always been allowed to make units "disappear" for deployment purposes, and since you already have permission, presumably you would have to have that permission specifically revoked, rather than not referred to at all?

Typically, if a transport could enter reserves, it specifically permits you its content can be brought along. Please refer to drop pod assault rules. Last lines of cloudstrike reads much in the same lines as drop pod assault rule.

I think RAI, cloudstrike was to allow flying transports to be used in similar fashion as a drop pod, hence the shared phrases.

Ambush does not specify this. I dont think units set up in transport locale can be brought along, as it doesnt have any special rules that allow you to do so.

 skchsan wrote:
as it doesnt have any special rules that allow you to do so.

Except it DOES. The core rules allow you to do so. I even posted the relevant rules with fancy yellow highlighting to show that this is the case.

I'm not sure it's mandatory that the transport explicitly say the unit is brought along.

I'm fairly certain, in fact, that the transport rules already give permission for a unit to be brought along wherever the transport goes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
as it doesnt have any special rules that allow you to do so.

Except it DOES. The core rules allow you to do so. I even posted the relevant rules with fancy yellow highlighting to show that this is the case.

Transport rule permits you put units inside of it. It does not permit you to carry over any rules upon its content unless it is specifically permitted to do so.

Various units that grant deepstriking to units that otherwise coudlnt specifically permits you to do so via special rule it has: drop pod assault (drop pod), transport spore (tyranocyte), subterrainean assault (trygon). Simply being a transport does not allow you to change 'on battlefield, inside transport' locale to 'in reserve, inside transport' unless it is specifically permitted (i.e. cloudstrike)

 skchsan wrote:
Transport rule permits you put units inside of it. It does not permit you to carry over any rules upon its content unless it is specifically permitted to do so.

Well first of all "Ambush" isn't a rule, it's just an alternate deployment.

Secondly, by that logic models that can't FLY in a Wave Serpent break the game.

Also, please provide a citation or rulebook quote for that assertion.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
as it doesnt have any special rules that allow you to do so.

Except it DOES. The core rules allow you to do so. I even posted the relevant rules with fancy yellow highlighting to show that this is the case.

Transport rule permits you put units inside of it. It does not permit you to carry over any rules upon its content unless it is specifically permitted to do so.

Various units that grant deepstriking to units that otherwise coudlnt specifically permits you to do so via special rule it has: drop pod assault (drop pod), transport spore (tyranocyte), subterrainean assault (trygon). Simply being a transport does not allow you to change 'on battlefield, inside transport' locale to 'in reserve, inside transport' unless it is specifically permitted (i.e. cloudstrike)

You are missing the point, I think.

It gives you permission to put the unit in the transport. The reserves are not being "carried over" as the unit isn't actually in reserve. Think about it this way:

Where is the unit? In the transport.

Where is the transport? In reserve.

Both of those are true statements, but the following statement:

"The unit is in a transport, which is in reserve, and therefore is in reserve itself" is making a logical leap unsupported by the rules. You would have to have a statement somewhere that says "a unit in a transport in reserve is also itself in reserve, as well as in the transport."

And that would have all kinds of wonky effects. E.g. the narrative play reserve rule where you roll a dice for each unit in reserve:
1) If the unit is in reserve in a transport, do you roll a dice for it separately, and if it passes, does the unit disembark from its transport and then walk on, and you have to roll the transport for a later turn?
2) If the transport passes and the unit fails, does the transport boot the passengers out before coming onto the board?

EDIT:
In fact, in the narrative rules, it explicitly says not to roll for the unit separately, as it is deployed with the transport.

The discussion has digressed from its original discussion from Unit1126PLL’s post @ 2017/12/12 14:12:38,

In order to facilitate this discussion, we first need to define and agree upon certain terminologies:

Deployment choice: models set up during deployment. Colloquially referred to as a ‘drop.’ A single deployment choice can be comprised of multiple <units>.
Unit: entries in the datasheets. Units can be comprised of single model, or as much as the datasheet allows.
Transport: A keyword which permits a vehicle to carry units inside of it.
On battlefield: Units that have been set up on the battlefield, as opposed to set up in tactical reserves. Binary opposite of “off the battlefield.”

We look at tactical reserves:
”… when setting up your army during Deployment… at least half the total numbers of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield.”

Here, we establish how units and deployment choices interact with the act of setting units up in reserve. When we are determining the 50% limit on setting up units in reserve, we count the number of units that has been set up on battlefield, not the total number of deployment choices. You can hold two units in reserve if you have a transport with a unit inside it deployed onbattlefield, because although the transport + unit consists of single deployment choice, it is considered to be two units. The unit has not “disappeared for the purpose of deployment” as you still count them for the purpose of calculating tactical reserves.

We now look to the ‘Ambush’ stratagem of Tallarn regiment:
“… choose up to three Tallarn units to set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield.”

Here, we are permitted to choose three units, not deployment choices, specifically those that are of Tallarn regiment, to set up in a reserves locale called ‘ambush’ instead of being placed on the battlefield. Here, you need to have the following keywords in order to be affected by the stratagem: TALLARN. Just because you're embarked on a tallarn transport doesn't make you a tallarn unit, nor does it exempt you from the keyword check as you're still counted as a unit.

This is where the Cloudstirke stratagem argument came in:
”… you can set up an asuryani vehicle unit… that can fly in the clouds instead of placing it on the battlefield… If you use this stratagem on the transport, all units embarked inside it remain so when it is set up in the clouds.”

Here, the stratagem affects a single unit with fly keyword. It has similar restriction to Ambush where it specifies the required keywords: ASURYANI, VEHICLE, and FLY for the unit to be a eligible target of the stratagem. It further goes on to permit transports to retain its passengers when it is set up in the locale called “clouds.” This is a specific extension as to what the unit that was the target of the stratagem may do. It permits additional units to take advantage of the stratagem although they don't have the requisite keywords, thus ineligible targets of the stratagem, as long as they can embark on the TRANSPORT that has the keywords ASURYANI, VEHICLE, and FLY.

You can't take a generalist approach on stratagems. Am I surprised that eldars have potentially stronger stratagem? Not since the game was born.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Transport rule permits you put units inside of it. It does not permit you to carry over any rules upon its content unless it is specifically permitted to do so.

Well first of all "Ambush" isn't a rule, it's just an alternate deployment.

Anything giving permissions is part of the rules. Not a valid rebuttal. The Rules are the Core Rules, Codexes, Datasheets FAQs, Stratagems... etc etc... the whole shebang.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Secondly, by that logic models that can't FLY in a Wave Serpent break the game.

Wrong - the unit emarked are given permission to be on board by the Wave Serpent's Datasheet, and then are covered by the Transports rules. RAW permitted. Don't use fallacious counter-examples as it doesn't illuminate anything.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Also, please provide a citation or rulebook quote for that assertion.

You've had tonnes of rules quoted but are ignoring all views but your own. You're also ignoring "Three Tallarn units" in every single one of your posits. Three very simple, very obvious, very restrictive words. You've not posted anything that allows you to ignore this part of the rules in play.

I don't see why your assessment prevents units in transports to be set up in those transports while the transports are set up in Ambush?

I agree with everything you've said, and yet think you can have ogryns in an ambushing transport.

Why?

Because they're not in Ambush. They're in a transport. They were never selected for the stratagem, and need not be, because nothing says they do.