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.

 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?

Please, for the love of all stop signs in the galaxy, cease. and. fething. desist. </Manperor of Mankind>

You're ignoring words again. They do count as units, the units inside are units, but NOT ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

I admit I was being a bit obnoxious in the last "3 in chimera" example.

But you're saying a single unit in a drop pod with 1 unit deployed would count as "1 unit on the battlefield, 2 units off battlefield, but 1 unit in reserve."

You're saying that a single deployment choice held in reserve counts as only having 1 in reserve, despite how many units fit inside the transport.

In your example, I can have one 6-man ogryn units, two (2) 3-man ogryn unit, or 12 primaris pskyers embarked ina banehammer, and it'll still count as only having one in reserve.

There's only on-battlefield and off-battlefield, with reserve being encompassing category within off-battlefield category.

Can you clarify your explanation of "1 unit on the battlefield, 2 units off battlefield, but 1 unit in reserve" rationale?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

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.

It was a joke, my friend. Take a breath.

Yes! I can.

I don't think "in reserve" is actually a category anymore.

Units can be "on the battlefield", "on teleportariums", "in high orbit" or "in Reserve" and many more besides. Those are direct quotes from possibilities in the "Tactical Reserves" section of matched play.

Another example is the Militarum Tempestus Scion squad, which is set up "in a high-altitude transport".

Presumably, while we may use reserves (lowercase r) as shorthand for these units, they are actually in a "place" as far as the rules are concerned (one of which, in Narrative Play and some mission special rules, can be Reserves with a capital R!).

These places can include "on the battlefield" as mentioned, but can also include "in a transport." As BCB provided above, units "in a transport" are explicitly no longer "on the battlefield."

Therefore, from those premises, I can conclude that:
1) A unit can be "on the battlefield" or "off the battlefield"
2) A unit anywhere other than "on the battlefield" is off the battlefield.
3) A unit in a transport is "off the battlefield".
4) Therefore, a unit in a transport is not "on the battlefield."

This means that a unit in a transport does not count towards the half of your units you must have "on the battlefield" according to the Matched Play tactical reserves rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum:
I realize I didn't finish what I started.

So what you have is 1 unit "on the battlefield" (whatever the deployed unit is), 1 unit "in a transport" (the unit in the pod), and one unit "in orbit" (The pod).

Incidentally, the pod's special rule actually calls out the unit embarked upon it as being "in orbit" as well, but that's not necessary (and even confuses the issue further).

So in the explicit case of a pod, you'll have 2 units "in orbit" and one unit "on the battlefield."

But that means there are two units in "orbit" - not on battlefield and one unit deployed on battlefield.

Shouldn't this violate the tactical reserves rule?

 skchsan wrote:
But that means there are two units in "orbit" - not on battlefield and one unit deployed on battlefield.

Shouldn't this violate the tactical reserves rule?

It does! I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't? One unit on the table, one unit in a transport, and one unit in orbit violates the rule just as badly as one unit on the table and two units in orbit does.

Right!

So if you have one unit "in a transport" (the unit in the banehammer), and one unit "in ambush" (The banehammer), you'd have two units "in ambush"
But Ogryns cannot be "in ambush" because the "ambush" locale is restricted to Tallarn units only.

Do see where we are disagreeing upon?

 skchsan wrote:
Right!

So if you have one unit "in a transport" (the unit in the banehammer), and one unit "in ambush" (The banehammer), you'd have two units "in ambush"
But Ogryns cannot be "in ambush" because the "ambush" locale is restricted to Tallarn units only.

Do see where we are disagreeing upon?

No. I agree that the Ogryns are "off the battlefield" but I disagree that they are "in ambush."

Explain why the ogryns are "in ambush" again?

They're obviously "in a transport" and therefore off the battlefield, but there's no reason for them to be considered to be in "ambush" (unless you accept the premise you made earlier that states "If a transport is in ambush, a unit inside the transport is also in ambush" which is not a premise I see any proof for).

So essentially, because being "in transport" and being "in ambush" are two different locales, the ogryns would not count towards being in "in ambush," correct?

But when you declare a certain unit is "in transport" you'd have to assign exactly which transport it is in - why is it that you can ignore the locale in which the transport is in?

 skchsan wrote:
So essentially, because being "in transport" and being "in ambush" are two different locales, the ogryns would not count towards being in "in ambush," correct?

But when you declare a certain unit is "in transport" you'd have to assign exactly which transport it is in - why is it that you can ignore the locale in which the transport is in?

Because it doesn't say to consider that?

It says you can choose what transport the unit goes in, full stop. It never states that you should ever worry about where said transport is (except for midgame; you can only embark if every model is within 3" of the vehicle iirc).

I'm now starting to understand why there's a group arguing this as a RAW vs RAI.

So what you're arguing is that because being 'in transport' puts you into a non-reserve, off-battlefield status, therefore it is not subject to the 'unit' restrictions on putting units into reserve via Ambush, since it's not going into 'reserve' or any other equal 'locale' but into 'in transport' locale, because being 'in transport' does not explicitly tell you that it necessarily shares the said transport's locale.

Then would you also argue that units set aside 'inside trygon's tunnel', 'any units embarked within (a drop pod), in orbit', and as per the wording on transport spore rule for tyrannocyte not be counted as being held in reserve, but rather 'in transport' of a transport which happens to be in reserve?

So in theory, I can fill up a drop pod with 10 single-model units inside and it'll only count as having 1 unit in reserve (the drop pod), since the 10 single-model units are not in reserve because it is in 'in transport' locale?

Pretty much skchsan, but with 10 models in a drop pod you still have 11 units off the board for the Tactical Reserves rule, the embarked units are not in the same location as the drop od though.

Drager wrote:
Pretty much skchsan, but with 10 models in a drop pod you still have 11 units off the board for the Tactical Reserves rule, the embarked units are not in the same location as the drop od though.

Yes, this.

You could put 10 single-model units in a reserved transport, giving you 10 "in a transport" units, 1 "in orbit/ambush/wherever" unit, and then however many units"on the battlefield."

However, you have to have 50% of your force "on the battlefield" so with that structure, that's 11 units somewhere other than the battlefield (including "in a transport" and "in reserve"), and that means you need at least 11 units "on the battlefield" as well.

You can't. The stratagem allows you to select 3 tallarn units to be set up in "ambush". So if I put 2 units of tallarn guard troops, and a tallarn transport, and a unit of auxillary ogryn in the transport...I just put 4 units in ambush and one of them is not tallarn.

You don't set up the transport in ambush and then go afterwards I'm also going to set up a unit of ogryns in the transport. Because at that point the transport is in ambush, and the ogryns don't have anything allowing them to be setup in ambush.
The fact they can be set up in the transport is moot. They are not Tallarn, and they exceed the allowed number of ambushing units.

Have you... read the thread?

I'm just asking, because you're raising exactly the same points that have already been debunked.

But just to entertain you:
Do you have proof that the Ogryns deployed in the transport are also in Ambush, as the transport is?

Has anyone mailed this one in yet?

40kfaq@gwplc.com

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Have you... read the thread?

I'm just asking, because you're raising exactly the same points that have already been debunked.

But just to entertain you:
Do you have proof that the Ogryns deployed in the transport are also in Ambush, as the transport is?

They haven't been 'debunked'. Let's not go circular, but let's not pretend there aren't two camps both claiming RAW on their side. The fact that others got bored of the merry-go-round and left it doesn't leave one interpretation as 'correct' by virtue of being last man standing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
Has anyone mailed this one in yet?

40kfaq@gwplc.com

I posted it as a FB comment before the email existed and got a reply to say they'd picked it up, and someone on another thread said they'd mailed in. No harm others doing so though, as the more that do the more chance this will get picked up. The only annoying thing might be waiting jntil March for them to tell us how many units "three Tallarn units" is.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I posted it as a FB comment before the email existed and got a reply to say they'd picked it up, and someone on another thread said they'd mailed in. No harm others doing so though, as the more that do the more chance this will get picked up. The only annoying thing might be waiting jntil March for them to tell us how many units "three Tallarn units" is.

Or if they finally clearly define transport once and for all so it takes care of numerous problems with transport interactions.

I've read every entry in this thread and do see the points being made pro and con. IMHO, if the strat intended to allow ogryns, psykers, what-have-you then it would say so. It says three Tallarn units. It seems some people want to harp on a perceived technicality to get by with something clearly unintended.

 Brotherjulian wrote:
I've read every entry in this thread and do see the points being made pro and con. IMHO, if the strat intended to allow ogryns, psykers, what-have-you then it would say so. It says three Tallarn units. It seems some people want to harp on a perceived technicality to get by with something clearly unintended.

I find your claim strange, as with others who have made it. Why would people who don't pay IG be looking for an unintended advantage? That is definitely not my intent, for instance. My nids and dark Eldar can't really make use of this at all.

Drager wrote:

 Brotherjulian wrote:
I've read every entry in this thread and do see the points being made pro and con. IMHO, if the strat intended to allow ogryns, psykers, what-have-you then it would say so. It says three Tallarn units. It seems some people want to harp on a perceived technicality to get by with something clearly unintended.

I find your claim strange, as with others who have made it. Why would people who don't pay IG be looking for an unintended advantage? That is definitely not my intent, for instance. My nids and dark Eldar can't really make use of this at all.

I see the reason for the stratagem, Tallarns are mobile and sneaky. They like to use multidirectional attacks to catch their enemies off balance yes? The game focuses on keywords and pins this stratagem on units designated as Tallarn. The stratagem limits it's utility to Tallarn units.
Ogryns do not get the Tallarn keyword so they aren't meant to be ambushed IMHO.
Despite this you refer back to the point that in this edition the rules seemingly give you a wide latitude to throw units into any vehicle you want. That may be so, but the general rule made no allowance for this specific circumstance. The ambush state is only a result of the stratagem which presumably came after the basic rules were written right?
Both units are being set up "somewhere" right? And if they're a "combined drop" then it should be simultaneously. In the basic rule it says the ogryns can be set up in the Chimera, but it doesn't include the possibility that Chimera would be in a place called "ambush" that no one thought of yet.
Hence the ambushing Chimera should be off the battlefield and the Ogryns should be on it. Admittedly I can see the other angle but it still seems like wriggling through a loophole to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And fyi, I've played Tallarn since 2nd ed. Best fitting use I see is to bring in a Hellhound or a veteran squad on somebody's flank. Maybe an infantry squad to seize an objective. I don't see it being a single game winning stroke.

Ok so how do you hold the Ogryn's off the table in tactical reserves before the game begins so that when the transport sets up in ambush on the table you can declare them embarked?
"Ambush" is just a special tactical reserves as they set up mid turn. So it follows all rules for tactical reserves.
It's a pretty janky attempt at a workaround. You couldn't even do it if it was a unit of Tallarn infantry trying to jump in the transport.

The unit is set up in ambush. At this point it being set up triggers the transport rule. This is all explained above.

In March an FAQ will come out saying "yes we really did mean just three, just Tallarn units". If not I'll consume my headwear.

 Brotherjulian wrote:
I've read every entry in this thread and do see the points being made pro and con. IMHO, if the strat intended to allow ogryns, psykers, what-have-you then it would say so. It says three Tallarn units. It seems some people want to harp on a perceived technicality to get by with something clearly unintended.

That thinking is asinine and unhelpful.

I could declare I feel it is a "technicality" and "clearly unintended" to force my models to roll to hit at all, they should automatically hit. It's also a "technicality" and "clearly unintended" for all my models to only have 1 wound, they should have 20.

It's not a "technicality", it's how the rules are actually written and how they should be played.

If it was unintended, they would issue an errata or special snowflake FAQ. Simple as that.

Drager wrote:
The unit is set up in ambush. At this point it being set up triggers the transport rule. This is all explained above.

All the transport rule does is allow a unit to begin the game embarked on a transport, and you must declare the unit is embarked when it is set up. Stratagem choose 3 tallarn units to be SET UP in ambush. So per the rules when I set up a transport in ambush I have to declare the Ogryns embarked on the transport. Where is the transport? In ambush. Where are the ogryns? Inside the transport, in ambush. The only rules about units inside of a transport not counting for something only apply to units inside of transports ON THE TABLE.

Problem 2 let's say I ignore the wording of the stratagem and assume SET UP means deployed on the table. Ok so where is the magic holding box rule? I put 3 units in Ambush, I deploy the rest of my army on the table except the Ogryns. The game begins...where are the Ogryns? Destroyed because I forgot to deploy them, they have no rule allowing them to be in tactical reserves. So they're either in their on tactical reserves which won't allow them to jump on the transport when it hits the table mid game because they are in a different tactical reserves because they can't be in ambush.
Or they're in the transport in ambush which violates the stratagem, or they are being held in some magic transport box the game has no rules for.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Where is the transport? In ambush. Where are the ogryns? Inside the transport, in ambush. The only rules about units inside of a transport not counting for something only apply to units inside of transports ON THE TABLE.

And the rules allow the ogryns to be embarked on that transport.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:
Where is the transport? In ambush. Where are the ogryns? Inside the transport, in ambush. The only rules about units inside of a transport not counting for something only apply to units inside of transports ON THE TABLE.

And the rules allow the ogryns to be embarked on that transport.

Yes the rules allow the ogryns to be embarked on the transport but the stratagem does not. 3 units and all tallarn in Ambush. Per the transport rules when a unit is set up. So same time. When I put the transport in ambush I must declare the ogryns embarked on the transport. Now I have 4 units being held in ambush, and 1 of them is not tallarn.

Units in transports don't go in some magic "transport" box.

So once again, please show me where any rules are being broken:

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.

And I say "that's more than three units and they aren't all Tallarn, and this is the common sense edition of 40k" and we're back to page one of the thread.

Either everyone can waste internet air repeating one side or t'other or they can feed back to GW via the email address and hopefully they'll FAQ soon for a final decision one way or t'other.