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.

Unit... You even admit it needs a FAQ.

Wouldn't you air on the side of caution until a,FAQ and not use it in a game ?
I run Tallern and stormlords. I wouldn't use the stratagem your way until it's clarified... Wouldn't you ?

 zedsdead wrote:
Unit... You even admit it needs a FAQ.

Wouldn't you air on the side of caution until a,FAQ and not use it in a game ?
I run Tallern and stormlords. I wouldn't use the stratagem your way until it's clarified... Wouldn't you ?

I don't run Tallarn, but if I did, I'd ask my opponent first and have a discussion before the game, but no, I wouldn't default to assuming it works this way, as there is clear ambiguity.

That said, I do believe the logic-chain of RAW is clear, even if the inclusion of GW's typical clarification would reduce ambiguity on the face of things.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.

It doesn't need to be "Given" the ability. Other special rules may include the wording for clarity, but the fact of the matter is that transports already have permission to carry units, and so while the clarification might be omitted (and that omission is the reason this thread exists), it is not necessary to include.

Transports have the ability to carry units by default, regardless of where they are.

Why do you feel that it can be omitted?

If a unit cannot normally be set up in reserves, they must be set up on the battlefield.

A transport on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with units that are in tactical reserves.
A unit on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with a transport in tactical reserves.

Deployment choice is formed at deployment/entering the battlefield, not before.
If the ogryns could not enter reserves, while the banehammer can, it cannot form a deployment choice of "banehammer with ogryns inside"

 skchsan wrote:
The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.

We've explained this to you about 30 times now. It doesn't have to "receive the ability" because the ability is baked into the core transport rules. By your logic putting some Guardians into a Wave Serpent is illegal because the Wave Serpent doesn't give the embarked Guardians the ability to FLY or to move 16"

 skchsan wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.

It doesn't need to be "Given" the ability. Other special rules may include the wording for clarity, but the fact of the matter is that transports already have permission to carry units, and so while the clarification might be omitted (and that omission is the reason this thread exists), it is not necessary to include.

Transports have the ability to carry units by default, regardless of where they are.

Why do you feel that it can be omitted?

If a unit cannot normally be set up in reserves, they must be set up on the battlefield.

A transport on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with units that are in tactical reserves.
A unit on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with a transport in tactical reserves.

I feel it can be omitted because it was a clarification. Clearly, it cannot be, as such lack of clarity causes issues...

As for your points:

1) A transport on the battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with a unit in tactical reserves because a unit cannot be in two places at once (both "in a transport" and "in orbit" or wherever).

2) A unit on the battlefield can also, presumably, not be a deployment choice with a transport at all, in reserves or otherwise, for much the same reason. It cannot be both "on the battlefield" and "in a transport."

However, neither of your point disproves the actual case, which is:

A unit in a transport.

The transport in Ambush.

Neither unit is in two places at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The transport has merely given the ability to go into reserves. It has not received the ability to carry the units into reserve as I have pointed out with certain units' special rules.

It doesn't need to be "Given" the ability. Other special rules may include the wording for clarity, but the fact of the matter is that transports already have permission to carry units, and so while the clarification might be omitted (and that omission is the reason this thread exists), it is not necessary to include.

Transports have the ability to carry units by default, regardless of where they are.

Why do you feel that it can be omitted?

If a unit cannot normally be set up in reserves, they must be set up on the battlefield.

A transport on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with units that are in tactical reserves.
A unit on battlefield cannot form a deployment choice with a transport in tactical reserves.

Deployment choice is formed at deployment/entering the battlefield, not before.
If the ogryns could not enter reserves, it cannot form a deployment choice of "banehammer with ogryns inside"

To address your edit now:
I don't understand your point. I thought we had already gotten over the "deployment choice" as being irrelevant, since units are different than deployment choices. Now we're bringing it back up again for some reason?

Because your proposed "banehammer with ogryns inside" is a deployment choice. You don't put ogryns inside before the stratagem because the act of putting something in a transport occurs when you are "setting the unit up," on or off the battlefield.

If the transport exist at a locale that units cannot enter, they cannot form a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.

I.E. - if by the restrictions of ambush stratagem and ogryns could not enter tactical reserves, it cannot be deployed together inside the transport which was in tactical reserves.

You don't put units inside a transport THEN move it to tactical reserves.

The special rule that I keep referring to PULLS the units into tactical reserves so that it may be deployed as a single choice.

 skchsan wrote:
Because your proposed "banehammer with ogryns inside" is a deployment choice. You don't put ogryns inside before the stratagem because the act of putting something in a transport occurs when you are "setting the unit up," on or off the battlefield.

If the transport exist at a locale that units cannot enter, they cannot form a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.

I.E. - if by the restrictions of ambush stratagem and ogryns could not enter tactical reserves, it cannot be deployed together inside the transport which was in tactical reserves.

Presumably, the transport does not need to be placed in tactical reserves until after it has already been selected by the Ogryns to be used as a transport, if the only thing bothering you is order of operations. The Banehammer starts off deployment as a regular unit, able for the ogryns to be deployed inside of it, and then when the stratagem is used on it, the Banehammer becomes a reserves unit. The stratagem does not care what is inside of it at the time it is used.

However, I don't believe in order of operations, and instead believe that a unit "in a transport" is not a unit "in reserves" even if said transport is in reserves. That's my interpretation.

In fact, requiring a unit to both be "in reserves" and "in a transport" is requiring a unit to be in two places at once, and is logically impossible. It is either itself "in reserves" or it is itself "in a transport" but cannot be both, even if the two units are deployed together as a single 'deployment choice' when the Banehammer arrives on the table.

EDIT:

You keep editing your post after you've already posted it, and that makes replying in one swoop rather hard.

As for your addition: I agree, I don't believe in any "order of operations" during deployment. Fortunately, I don't have to; the ogryns are not "in reserve" they are "in a transport". (Even though it is possible that the transport itself is in reserve; whether or not it is is comparatively irrelevant to the Ogryn unit).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Because your proposed "banehammer with ogryns inside" is a deployment choice. You don't put ogryns inside before the stratagem because the act of putting something in a transport occurs when you are "setting the unit up," on or off the battlefield.

If the transport exist at a locale that units cannot enter, they cannot form a deployment choice consisting of multiple units.

I.E. - if by the restrictions of ambush stratagem and ogryns could not enter tactical reserves, it cannot be deployed together inside the transport which was in tactical reserves.

Presumably, the transport does not need to be placed in tactical reserves until after it has already been selected by the Ogryns to be used as a transport, if the only thing bothering you is order of operations. The Banehammer starts off deployment as a regular unit, able for the ogryns to be deployed inside of it, and then when the stratagem is used on it, the Banehammer becomes a reserves unit. The stratagem does not care what is inside of it at the time it is used.

However, I don't believe in order of operations, and instead believe that a unit "in a transport" is not a unit "in reserves" even if said transport is in reserves. That's my interpretation.

In fact, requiring a unit to both be "in reserves" and "in a transport" is requiring a unit to be in two places at once, and is logically impossible. It is either itself "in reserves" or it is itself "in a transport" but cannot be both, even if the two units are deployed together as a single 'deployment choice' when the Banehammer arrives on the table.

EDIT:

You keep editing your post after you've already posted it, and that makes replying in one swoop rather hard.

As for your addition: I agree, I don't believe in any "order of operations" during deployment. Fortunately, I don't have to; the ogryns are not "in reserve" they are "in a transport". (Even though it is possible that the transport itself is in reserve; whether or not it is is comparatively irrelevant to the Ogryn unit).

Transport rule clearly states that you "declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up" It's not an ignorable order of operations.

Ambush stratagem is used during deployment. It allows you to put units in reserve instead of deploying on the battlefield.
The banehammer isn't deployed on the battlefield AND THEN removed from play via stratagem.
You are not on the transport until the moment transport/passengers are set up on the battlefield or reserves.

As for the edit, maybe try waiting a few minutes before replying

 skchsan wrote:
Transport rule clearly states that you "declare what units are embarked inside the transport when you set it up" It's not an ignorable order of operations.

Ambush stratagem is used during deployment. It allows you to put units in reserve instead of deploying on the battlefield.
The banehammer isn't deployed on the battlefield AND THEN removed from play via stratagem.
You are not on the transport until the moment transport/passengers are set up on the battlefield or reserves.

As for the edit, maybe try waiting a few minutes before replying

I am going to quote my post on page 1 of this thread.
You are making up words and ignoring the rules. Look, I've even highlighted the key words in yellow.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Here is the complete sequence of actions.

It is deployment.

I announce "I use the Ambush stratagem."

I then "Choose up to three TALLARN units to be set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield (only one of these units can have the VEHICLE keyword)."

I then decide to set up a Stormlord and two Tallarn Company Commanders (because why not).

I invoke the rule from the rulebook: "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."

I declare that the "units" that "start the battle embarked within it" are my Ogryns.

You are asserting that because the banehammer isn't deployed on the battlefield it matters, it does not. The words "set up" are used consistently and constantly.

You know how this is going to end right? Either you're going to be laughed at by opponents for making stuff up, GW is going to give us an FAQ that confirms what the rule says, or GW is going to issue an errata/special snowflake ruling, proving you wrong from a rules as written standpoint.

skchsan, I don't understand your point.

So the transport exists in reserves. Neato, good for the transport.

I deploy a unit of Ogryns in the transport. The Ogryns are not in reserve. (In fact, they cannot be, as a unit cannot be in two places at once, i.e. "in a transport" and "in reserve.")

What is the problem?

Because the ogryns, by lack of rule, cannot exist in reserves, unless otherwise stated.

By extension of your wordings:
The ogryns are inside the transport.
The transport is in reserve.
Ogryns are in reserve.

Transports being able to have units embarked in it is different than allowing units to exist in reserves.

 skchsan wrote:
By extension of your wordings:
The ogryns are inside the transport.
The transport is in reserve.
Ogryns are in reserve.

Can you explain why you think the first three steps of that logic chain (all true) somehow indicate or otherwise demonstrate the last step?

At the very least, the concluding step should read "The Ogryns are in a transport which is in reserve." If I asked "where the Ogryns were?" and you said "in reserve" I'd rightly say "Oh, that's impossible, they don't have that rule!" but if you said "in a transport, which is itself in reserve" I'd say "oh, sure, fine, they can be in a transport."

The Ogryns are not existing in reserve; they're existing in a transport (which is itself in reserve).

BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.

Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...

Can't wait to see Stormlord Ogryns dominating the tournament scene.

Deductive logic.

P1: Ogryns are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is in reserve (q -> n)
C: Ogryns are in reserve (p -> n)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

xmbk wrote:
BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.

Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...

Can't wait to see Stormlord Ogryns dominating the tournament scene.

I don't know man, it seems like BCB's the most loud and fury-ie here. Unit and I are just having logical discussions.

Deductive logic.

P1: Guardians are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is Flying (q -> n)
C: Guardians are Flying (p -> n)

xmbk wrote:
BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.

Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...

...that people can somehow parse the phrase "three Tallarn units" to include "and multiple embarked Ogryns", flying in the face of a very basic sentence?

I know that ruins your Shakespeare but it's more accurate. And it avoids the implied "tale told by an idiot" ad hominem too.

xmbk wrote:
Deductive logic.

P1: Guardians are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is Flying (q -> n)
C: Guardians are Flying (p -> n)

Dem some well flashy gitz!

@skchsan: You've not been having a logical discussion because you have been ignoring both logic and the actual rules.

For those hung up on the "3 little words": Ogryns are "ambushing" because of the transport rules, not because of the stratagem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bonus points for getting the Shakespeare reference. Unfortunately, you English Lit guys are not known for your logic skills.

xmbk wrote:
Deductive logic.

P1: Guardians are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is Flying (q -> n)
C: Guardians are Flying (p -> n)

Having guardians inside a flying transport doesn't prohibit the transport from utilizing the benefits of fly keyword though?
Your reasoning is valid but not sound.

xmbk wrote:
For those hung up on the "3 little words": Ogryns are "ambushing" because of the transport rules, not because of the stratagem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bonus points for getting the Shakespeare reference. Unfortunately, you English Lit guys are not known for your logic skills.

My logic skills are just fine, thanks. Stow the ad hominems, dude, Rule 1 exists.

 skchsan wrote:
Deductive logic.

P1: Ogryns are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is in reserve (q -> n)
C: Ogryns are in reserve (p -> n)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

xmbk wrote:
BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.

Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...

Can't wait to see Stormlord Ogryns dominating the tournament scene.

I don't know man, it seems like BCB's the most loud and fury-ie here. Unit and I are just having logical discussions.

You're misusing modus ponens here.

You should rephrase:

"If the transport is in reserve, then anything inside the transport is in reserve." (p->q)
"The Ogryns are inside the transport" (q)
"Therefore, they are in reserve" (p)

This is a valid argument.


HOWEVER:
The issue I am having is with your first premise: "If the transport is in reserve, then something inside the transport is in reserve." That is a false premise.
Therefore, while valid, the argument is unsound.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Deductive logic.

P1: Ogryns are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is in reserve (q -> n)
C: Ogryns are in reserve (p -> n)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

xmbk wrote:
BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.

Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...

Can't wait to see Stormlord Ogryns dominating the tournament scene.

I don't know man, it seems like BCB's the most loud and fury-ie here. Unit and I are just having logical discussions.

You're misusing modus ponens here.

You should rephrase:

"If the transport is in reserve, then anything inside the transport is in reserve." (p->q)
"The Ogryns are inside the transport" (q)
"Therefore, they are in reserve" (p)

This is a valid argument.


HOWEVER:
The issue I am having is with your first premise: "If the transport is in reserve, then something inside the transport is in reserve." That is a false premise.
Therefore, while valid, the argument is unsound.

Touche. Point taken.

But extending this to regular transports that begin in the reserve - say, you have 3 units, 1 deployed on the battlefield and 1 arriving via drop pod with the drop pod being the 3rd. This would mean that there are 1 unit on board and 2 in reserves, would it not?

 skchsan wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Deductive logic.

P1: Ogryns are inside the transport (p -> q)
P2: Transport is in reserve (q -> n)
C: Ogryns are in reserve (p -> n)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

xmbk wrote:
BCB's last 2 posts sum it up succinctly.

Everything else is sound and fury, signifying...

Can't wait to see Stormlord Ogryns dominating the tournament scene.

I don't know man, it seems like BCB's the most loud and fury-ie here. Unit and I are just having logical discussions.

You're misusing modus ponens here.

You should rephrase:

"If the transport is in reserve, then anything inside the transport is in reserve." (p->q)
"The Ogryns are inside the transport" (q)
"Therefore, they are in reserve" (p)

This is a valid argument.


HOWEVER:
The issue I am having is with your first premise: "If the transport is in reserve, then something inside the transport is in reserve." That is a false premise.
Therefore, while valid, the argument is unsound.

Touche. Point taken.

But extending this to regular transports that begin in the reserve - say, you have 3 units, 1 deployed on the battlefield and 1 arriving via drop pod. This would mean that there are 1 unit on board and 2 in reserves, would it not?

Well, no, you'd have 1 unit on the board and 2 units off the battlefield, but only 1 in reserves (the third is in a transport).

The Matched Play rule says that "half your units" must be deployed on the battlefield, but does not say where else the others must be ("in reserve/in a transport/at home asleep/dead" are all options, after a fashion) and even goes out of its way to state that there are is more than one place a unit can go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum:

The whole problem might arise from our casual use of the word reserves.

Note that GW does not use the word "reserves" anywhere, and instead says a unit is deployed "somewhere" (e.g. 'in high orbit' or 'in a teleportarium' or 'on the battlefield'.)

It may be useful to drop the reserve nomenclature entirely and start saying where a unit actually is.

So, this may, or may not, cause a problem.



However the Craftworld Strategem 'Cloudstrike' mentions that if a transport is chosen, all units embarked inside it remain so in the clouds.

Use this strategem during deployment if you have not used the Webway Strike Strategem (pg119) this battle. You can set up an ASURYANI VEHICLE unit from your army that can FLY in the clouds instead of placing it on the battlefield. It can descend at the end of any of your Movement phases - set it up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from any enemy units. If you use this Strategem on a transports, all units embarked inside if remain so when it is set up in the clouds.



Use that information as you will. I believe that the statement is a clarification rather than a qualifier.
Given that Tallarn Ambush, and Cloudstrike are similar strategems in nature...

I side with those who are saying that 'yes you can pick 3 tallarn stormlords, and load all 3 up with orgyn'

That's already been talked about, Korbee, and whether it is a necessary permission or merely a clarification is going to be made clear in a future FAQ, presumably, on the issue.

Also, you can't actually use the stratagem on 3 vehicles; due to the new AM FAQ you can only choose 1 vehicle out of the 3 potential units. (the others must, presumably, be non-vehicle).

But that would mean that if:

-I deploy a chimera with three commanders
-I then put 4 units of scions in reserve

Then this would be a illegal?

 skchsan wrote:
But that would mean that if:

-I deploy a chimera with three commanders
-I then put 4 units of scions in reserve

Then this would be a illegal?

Yes. I suspect said illegality is an unintended consequence, but I have no evidence other than my own belief. It very well could be intended, to stop armies from deploying one tiny transport out of LOS full of random characters and then reserving their entire army, as you rightly point out is made illegal.

 skchsan wrote:
But that would mean that if:

-I deploy a chimera with three commanders
-I then put 4 units of scions in reserve

Then this would be a illegal?

It would be illegal, because the Tactical Reserve rules are explicit:

"When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield"

Being set up on a transport, in the clouds, in a tunnel, in anything but ON THE BATTLEFIELD, is not on the battlefield. The transport rules are also explicit "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side – it is now embarked inside the transport."

Again, GW has shockingly been actually consistent with their wording and usage of the term "set up".

Can you point me to where it tells us to discount transports as not a unit?
By that extension, if transports are discounted from unit count, shouldn't banehammer also be excluded from being selected for ambush as it is a transport, therefore not counted towards unit count? Wouldn't it?

 skchsan wrote:
Can you point me to where it tells us to discount transports as not a unit?
By that extension, if transports are discounted from unit count, shouldn't banehammer also be excluded from being selected for ambush as it is a transport, therefore not counted towards unit count? Wouldn't it?

Transports aren't discounted from being a unit! The example you posted has 1 unit on the battlefield, 3 units in transports (well, in a transport), and 4 units in orbit. Since half your units have to be on the battlefield, it's illegal, even if it still has the transport on the battlefield.

Transports absolutely do count as units.