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.

If one unit disembarks. Can another unit immediately embark into it ? or do you have to wait until the next turn ?
I can't seem to find a rule that disallows this ?

Edit: no one answered my second question so i am posting it as a new thread

You can embark a second unit into the transport that someone just left.

However, any given unit may only disembark or embark in a turn-not both.

So, take a CSM Rhino. Say it has a squad of Havocs in there, and a squad of Berserkers behind it. You can disembark the Havocs, move them; embark the Berserkers, move the Rhino; and everything's all good.

AFAIK the Stepping Into A New Edition document is still valid, and includes this:

Q: Can a unit that Advances or Falls Back embark within a transport? What about if the transport has moved before – can a unit still embark inside?
A: Yes, yes and yes (remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the
same turn).

So no, you can’t disembark one unit then embark another right away.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can embark a second unit into the transport that someone just left.

However, any given unit may only disembark or embark in a turn-not both.

So, take a CSM Rhino. Say it has a squad of Havocs in there, and a squad of Berserkers behind it. You can disembark the Havocs, move them; embark the Berserkers, move the Rhino; and everything's all good.

No, you cannot. Due to the magic of Special Snowflake FAQs. The rules allow it, but the FAQ prohibits it, because writing rules properly is not important.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Warhammer_40000_Stepping_into_a_New_Edition_of_Warhammer_40000.pdf

STEPPING INTO A NEW EDITION OF WARHAMMER 40,000 wrote:Q: Can a unit that Advances or Falls Back embark within a transport? What about if the transport has moved before – can a unit still embark inside?
A: Yes, yes and yes (remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the same turn).

however, this is strange to me.
the statement is "remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the same turn"
this seems like a typo more then anything...
they are asking us to recall a rule that does not exists somewhere else... its not actually a statement of rules, it is a piece of reminder text that doesn't actually reference something real.

on this forum there doesn't really seem to be a standard for when we should specific adhere to example/reminder text and when we shouldn't
for example

Note that for a model with a pulse rifle (a
Rapid Fire weapon) this means that it would make two
hit rolls unless the target is within half range, in which
case it would make three hit rolls.

are we expect to treat these weapons differently because they reference them wrong ?

and how about

Q: Can units embark inside a transport in a phase other than the
Movement phase, such as when they are using the Fire and Fade
Stratagem from Codex: Craftworlds, or when a unit performs a
Soulburst action to move again?
A: No, unless the rule in question specifically states that
the unit can embark inside a Transport.

should I be able to embark with a psycic power specifically because the reminder/example text doesn't specifically refer to that phase . psyicic powers are not strats or unit abilities ... and other rules would suggest I could.

I feel like when reminder/example text in the FAQ is either descriptive, refers to something that does not exist, or is not completely encompassing, it is not actually a part of what the designers are submitting to us as "new rules and guidelines."

Didn't someone say they fixed the Pulse Rifle thing, though? Am I misremembering?

Type40 wrote:

and how about

Q: Can units embark inside a transport in a phase other than the
Movement phase, such as when they are using the Fire and Fade
Stratagem from Codex: Craftworlds, or when a unit performs a
Soulburst action to move again?
A: No, unless the rule in question specifically states that
the unit can embark inside a Transport.

should I be able to embark with a psycic power specifically because the reminder/example text doesn't specifically refer to that phase . psyicic powers are not strats or unit abilities ... and other rules would suggest I could.

I feel like when reminder/example text in the FAQ is either descriptive, refers to something that does not exist, or is not completely encompassing, it is not actually a part of what the designers are submitting to us as "new rules and guidelines."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/775061.page#10437316

Type40 wrote:

and how about

Q: Can units embark inside a transport in a phase other than the
Movement phase, such as when they are using the Fire and Fade
Stratagem from Codex: Craftworlds, or when a unit performs a
Soulburst action to move again?
A: No, unless the rule in question specifically states that
the unit can embark inside a Transport.


should I be able to embark with a psycic power specifically because the reminder/example text doesn't specifically refer to that phase . psyicic powers are not strats or unit abilities ... and other rules would suggest I could.

I feel like when reminder/example text in the FAQ is either descriptive, refers to something that does not exist, or is not completely encompassing, it is not actually a part of what the designers are submitting to us as "new rules and guidelines."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/775061.page#10437316

Right, that is exactly what I am refereeing too,

you cleared it up by removing the example text, as it was not pertinent to understanding the RAW and intention of the answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Didn't someone say they fixed the Pulse Rifle thing, though? Am I misremembering?

I copied and pasted that strait out of the FAQ.

The mods don't really like spreading the same discussion over multiple threads.

Sorry,
I was not asking a question there, i was using that particular FAQ as an example based on what was explained to me in the other thread.

I was using it show that I am confused because the community doesn't seem consistent on when we should ignore this type of thing and when we shouldn't.

I did not post that question as a "please answer the question" the context of the post was a reference to the current topic.

I will keep this discussion to the new thread/poll I made because it is clearly indicative of a much larger subject and a much more impacting rules question.

The transports rule says a unit cannot both embark and disembark in the same turn. A transport is a unit, isn't it ? There is your rule.

There isn’t really such a thing as “reminder text”, OP. It’s a term people use when they don’t want to follow the rule, tbh. Yes, they used ‘remember’ when it’s the first time they’ve mentioned this restriction, but it’s still part of an FAQ and therefore carries the same weight as the Rules. So the answer is still no, you can’t embark and disembark in the same turn.

[quoteThere isn’t really such a thing as “reminder text”, OP. It’s a term people use when they don’t want to follow the rule, tbh. Yes, they used ‘remember’ when it’s the first time they’ve mentioned this restriction, but it’s still part of an FAQ and therefore carries the same weight as the Rules. So the answer is still no, you can’t embark and disembark in the same turn.]

As far as I am concerned, as long as you apply the same standard for everything, it's fine to do either standard.

In other words, it's either OK to ignore every rule, or to apply every rule. There is no middle ground. If you get to ignore one FAQ or rule because you dislike it, then you must allow every rule and FAQ to be ignored.

As far as I am concerned, as long as you apply the same standard for everything, it's fine to do either standard.

In other words, it's either OK to ignore every rule, or to apply every rule. There is no middle ground. If you get to ignore one FAQ or rule because you dislike it, then you must allow every rule and FAQ to be ignored.

This is option number 2.

So the RAW is "remember though that a transport cannot both embark and disembark units in the same turn"
So from now on, to follow this verbatim RAW, we must try to recall a rule about transports not being able to embark and disembark units in the same turn... conclusion... you can disembark a unit and embark a different unit in the same turn as long as you remember to contemplate a non-existing rule first. Seems a bit tedious, but that's what is written.

You don't get to have it both ways. we either decide this is RAW or we don't.

Doesn't the existing transport rule explicitly tell you you cannot disembark & embark on the same turn?

 skchsan wrote:
Doesn't the existing transport rule explicitly tell you you cannot disembark & embark on the same turn?

It says you cannot disembark and embark a unit on the same turn, not that a transport cannot have a unit disembark and embark upon it in the same turn. However, the FAQ overrules this because GW don't want to hire someone to write rules properly.

 skchsan wrote:
Doesn't the existing transport rule explicitly tell you you cannot disembark & embark on the same turn?

The SAME UNIT cannot.

The OP is asking about different units.

In other words, it's either OK to ignore every rule, or to apply every rule. There is no middle ground. If you get to ignore one FAQ or rule because you dislike it, then you must allow every rule and FAQ to be ignored.

I am not proposing we ignore any rule. I postulating that reminder text and example text are NOT rules. and even if they are, in this particular case it makes no impact on the game due to the word "Remember."
If anyone disagrees with that, then they are saying that the word "Remember" is not counted for a verbatim RAW and thus are supporting my stance on Reminder and example text not being intentional or valid submissions of new rules and changes.

We either do it RAW or we don't and either way, the answer is yes you can. RAW you have to have small moment contemplating the existential existence of a non-existing rule. Otherwise, this text is not a rule but a poorly written explanation or "extra" to the actual question the FAQ is trying to answer.

Splitting some hair while we're at it - but isn't a transport nonetheless a unit? There are no distinction between a unit (that is eligible to be embarked/disembarked) performing a disembark/embark move and a transport performing disembark of its contents/embark a unit.

So, when one states "a unit cannot both disembark and embark in the same turn", it should also apply to what a transport [UNIT] can or cannot do?

Splitting some hair while we're at it - but isn't a transport nonetheless a unit? There are no distinction between a unit (that is eligible to be embarked/disembarked) performing a disembark/embark move and a transport performing disembark of its contents/embark a unit.

So, when one states "a unit cannot both disembark and embark in the same turn", it should also apply to what a transport [UNIT] can or cannot do?

:If all models in a unit end their move, during the movement phase, within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it

BRB 183

The unit doing the embarking is doing the action, not the transport itself.
a transport can not actually embark,,, this is something a unit does.

I already said that 12 hours ago, and no one seems to care. The rule dont say which unit(s) perform the embarking/disembarking. It could be both the transport and the infantry.

 Type40 wrote:

Splitting some hair while we're at it - but isn't a transport nonetheless a unit? There are no distinction between a unit (that is eligible to be embarked/disembarked) performing a disembark/embark move and a transport performing disembark of its contents/embark a unit.

So, when one states "a unit cannot both disembark and embark in the same turn", it should also apply to what a transport [UNIT] can or cannot do?

:If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it

BRB 183

The unit doing the embarking is doing the action, not the transport itself.
a transport can not actually embark,,, this is something a unit does.

According to your logic, if a transport finishes it's move within 3" of all models in a unit, then the unit cannot embark into it because it's the transport that finished its move to fulfill the conditions for embarking and not the unit trying to embark on it.

So...

If a transport finishes its move with 3", then the unit cannot embark.
If a transport moves, then the unit moves within 3" to it it can embark.
If a unit cannot make a legal move (i.e. out of coherency and cannot move into coherency) then it can never embark because technically it cannot "finish its move".

The result is largely inconsistent under your interpretation.

 skchsan wrote:
Splitting some hair while we're at it - but isn't a transport nonetheless a unit? There are no distinction between a unit (that is eligible to be embarked/disembarked) performing a disembark/embark move and a transport performing disembark of its contents/embark a unit.

So, when one states "a unit cannot both disembark and embark in the same turn", it should also apply to what a transport [UNIT] can or cannot do?

I like this reading of the rules. And it neatly explains why the designers commentary told us to "remember" the rule - it was there, just not very clear.

If a unit does not Move, it still finished a Move. It finished a Move of 0".

 flandarz wrote:
If a unit does not Move, it still finished a Move. It finished a Move of 0".

The FAQ outlines that if a unit cannot move into coherency, it cannot move.

A unit 'locked in combat' (i.e. within 1" of enemy unit) cannot move, except to make a fall back move.

You can declare a unit that it will be advancing but make a move of 0". You cannot declare a unit will advance it if cannot make a move.

Making a 0" movement is distinct from being unable to move.

 flandarz wrote:
If a unit does not Move, it still finished a Move. It finished a Move of 0".

Only if you select the unit to move and choose to not move it. This is why Grinding Advance got errata'd to also work if you remain stationary.

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Splitting some hair while we're at it - but isn't a transport nonetheless a unit? There are no distinction between a unit (that is eligible to be embarked/disembarked) performing a disembark/embark move and a transport performing disembark of its contents/embark a unit.

So, when one states "a unit cannot both disembark and embark in the same turn", it should also apply to what a transport [UNIT] can or cannot do?

:If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it

BRB 183

The unit doing the embarking is doing the action, not the transport itself.
a transport can not actually embark,,, this is something a unit does.

According to your logic, if a transport finishes it's move within 3" of all models in a unit, then the unit cannot embark into it because it's the transport that finished its move to fulfill the conditions for embarking and not the unit trying to embark on it.

So...

If a transport finishes its move with 3", then the unit cannot embark.
If a transport moves, then the unit moves within 3" to it it can embark.
If a unit cannot make a legal move (i.e. out of coherency and cannot move into coherency) then it can never embark because technically it cannot "finish its move".

The result is largely inconsistent under your interpretation.

The unit can embark, at the end of their movement of 0"

The FAQ outlines that if a unit cannot move into coherency, it cannot move.

A unit 'locked in combat' (i.e. within 1" of enemy unit) cannot move, except to make a fall back move.

You can declare a unit that it will be advancing but make a move of 0". You cannot declare a unit will advance it if cannot make a move.

Making a 0" movement is distinct from being unable to move.

if a unit can not make a legal move and can not finish its move it can not embark.
this was made clear in the new FAQ

Q: Can a unit that is within 1" of the enemy and entirely within
3" of a friendly Transport embark into that transport without
having to move? For example, because they cannot Fly and
would have to move through enemy models?
A: No

in this case, the unit can not move because of being within 1" of an enemy model and can not fall back because of other models being in the way and thus being disallowed to move.
So yes, in terms of the newest FAQ, what you have written about my logic does seem to be true. thank you for supporting it.

by using the logic that both the transport and the unit are both "embarking" all restrictions that a unit must have to embark must also be fulfilled by the transport. for example

If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport,they can embark within it.Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side

does this mean we then also remove the transport from the battlefield ? if both are the units taking the embark action then clearly both are subject to the rules, as both just embarked?

I conclude, embarking is an action taken by a unit and not the transport itself. The transport is a requirement for the action.

 Type40 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Splitting some hair while we're at it - but isn't a transport nonetheless a unit? There are no distinction between a unit (that is eligible to be embarked/disembarked) performing a disembark/embark move and a transport performing disembark of its contents/embark a unit.

So, when one states "a unit cannot both disembark and embark in the same turn", it should also apply to what a transport [UNIT] can or cannot do?

:If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport, they can embark within it

BRB 183

The unit doing the embarking is doing the action, not the transport itself.
a transport can not actually embark,,, this is something a unit does.

According to your logic, if a transport finishes it's move within 3" of all models in a unit, then the unit cannot embark into it because it's the transport that finished its move to fulfill the conditions for embarking and not the unit trying to embark on it.

So...

If a transport finishes its move with 3", then the unit cannot embark.
If a transport moves, then the unit moves within 3" to it it can embark.
If a unit cannot make a legal move (i.e. out of coherency and cannot move into coherency) then it can never embark because technically it cannot "finish its move".

The result is largely inconsistent under your interpretation.

The unit can embark, at the end of their movement of 0"

The FAQ outlines that if a unit cannot move into coherency, it cannot move.

A unit 'locked in combat' (i.e. within 1" of enemy unit) cannot move, except to make a fall back move.

You can declare a unit that it will be advancing but make a move of 0". You cannot declare a unit will advance it if cannot make a move.

Making a 0" movement is distinct from being unable to move.

if a unit can not make a legal move and can not finish its move it can not embark.
this was made clear in the new FAQ

Q: Can a unit that is within 1" of the enemy and entirely within
3" of a friendly Transport embark into that transport without
having to move? For example, because they cannot Fly and
would have to move through enemy models?
A: No

in this case, the unit can not move because of being within 1" of an enemy model and can not fall back because of other models being in the way and thus being disallowed to move.

by using the logic that both the transport and the unit are both "embarking" all restrictions that a unit must have to embark must also be fulfilled by the transport. for example

If all models in a unit end their move within 3" of a friendly transport,they can embark within it.Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side

does this mean we then also remove the transport from the battlefield ? if both are the units taking the embark action then clearly both are subject to the rules ?

No, the logic is that transport is a unit, and the unit embarking/disembarking is a unit. There is no distinction between whether a transport is a unit or not for the purpose of transport rule. The rule states a unit cannot perform both disembark and embark in the same turn.

No, the logic is that transport is a unit, and the unit embarking/disembarking is a unit. There is no distinction between whether a transport is a unit or not for the purpose of transport rule. The rule states a unit cannot perform both disembark and embark in the same turn.

so are you suggesting that when a unit embarks, the transport is also considered embarking ?