What was the issue, and has it been fixed?

[Mr Mystery]

Afternoon all.

Well, someone has to broach this topic, so might as well be me.

For those with the 7th Ed rulebook (if you haven't got it, you can't be sure), please list up the rules questions 6th Ed had, and whether you have found any clarification in 7th Ed. And have any others been raised?

I appreciate it's early days at the moment, as we're likely not all through the book yet.

Me, I've looked into IC's joining Infiltrating units on deployment, as I read someone's post saying it hasn't been clarified.

Pp 166 of The Rules. Clearly states an IC that does not have Infiltrate as a special rule cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment.

Pp 167 of The Rules confirms this is 'vice versa', as Infiltrators are set up after all other units, so a character with Infiltrate cannot do so with a unit that doesn't have it. (being put into Reserves effectively counting as being deployed, albeit not on the board)

So that's one apparently crossed off the list (unless, as can never be truly ruled out I've misunderstood the issue of IC's and infiltrate and that).

[Throne Agent]

The range issue with weapons in a unit firing simulteneously, so bolters could potentially a model 48" away, now you pick which group of the same weapons to use and fire one at a time, meaning this is avoided

[daboarder]

the question is

Can an IC with infiltrate join a unit without infiltrate and cause them to infiltrate.

the ambiguity comes from the use of "one or more models" in infiltrate and the deployment rules that state you join by being deployed with 2 of the unit

As far as I am aware this is still up in the air. The argument against relied upon a logic train that also prevented you from deploying IC inside dedicated transports.

An indepth understanding of the issue and reading the rules will be required to determine if the issue remains or was settled elsewhere (I have heard both)

[Mr Mystery]

Seems they can't.

Pp 135 - Rules about Reserve. 3rd Paragaph. 'During Deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the IC in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must arrive together. Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case, when making a Reserves roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice (sic) for the unit and/or its IC/Transport Vehicle.

So Reserves are actively declared during deployment.

Once declared in Reserves, you can't then deploy.

ICs join units on deployment, meaning that any unit without Infiltrate is deployed before the IC with Infiltrate. Net? He can't grant it to a unit in time for them to join him giggling in the bushes.

- - - Updated - - -

One final crack, as I rambled a bit.....

Units with Infiltrate are deployed last. Reserves are declared during deployment.

Once in Reserves, that unit has to remain in Reserves.

IC's join units upon deployment by being deployed within unit coherency (Pp166) unless both are held in Reserve (Pp135), in which case their buddying up is declared when they're put in Reserve.

So there's no method whereby an IC with Infiltrate can Infiltrate with a unit that does not itself have Infiltrate.

It's a wee bit round the houses, but it seems pretty clear.

[Throne Agent]

Its never been ambiguous, its just people wanted ICs to confer it and would then try and twist the rules to suit it. They can't do it because the unit would have to deploy and then the IC, with infiltrate would deploy after that. You can'ts put them all in reserves and then deploy with infiltrate

[daboarder]

that is no change from the 6th ed wording.

As has been reported it is currently still a question as far as we are aware, because.

1) If you cant "join" a unit without being within 2 of it, then you cant be in their dedicated transport
2) Infiltrate contains the same text that lets ICs pass on other special rules
3) Infiltrate contains a caveat that states IC may not join units with infiltrate if they dont have it, but does not make any mention of the later (which would adress the issue simply)
4) The IC rules state that ICs may join units "before the game"

Again as far as has been reported the issue is still up in the air

[Mr Mystery]

Pp135.

'An Independent Caharacter can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in Reserve, by you informing your opponent of which unit is has joined'.

Answers the Infiltrate question at least, as the units without Infiltrate are already deployed before the IC goes.

[Throne Agent]

Its really never been confusing unless people were trying to be obtuse to infiltrate units they weren't supposed to.

[daboarder]

ooh for fudge sake Mystery dont just post the same bloody thing over and over especially if you clearly aren't comprehending what the issue was before

[Throne Agent]

The issue is clear and he's understanding it, ICs can pass Infiltrate on to a unit, by being deployed within 2" of them or joining them while in reserves. However, to do either of those things, you can't Infiltrate the IC.

[Mr Mystery]

Issue seems to be extremely creative reading.

By the time any Infiltrating IC's are deployed, all other units are either on the board, or held in Reserves.

IC's aren't placed at the same time as any given unit, unless declared so when being put into Reserves.

Where's the issue?

[daboarder]

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?33003-IC-w-infiltrate-joining-units

read it, understand it, try not to be snide

apparently pg 166


An IC can begin a game already with a unit

again, issue unresolved

[Katharon]

I think that everyone should check out the way assaults are specifically worded now -- it's much harder to pull off multiple assaults (one unit going after more than one enemy unit).

[daboarder]

I think that everyone should check out the way assaults are specifically worded now -- it's much harder to pull off multiple assaults (one unit going after more than one enemy unit).

does it still say you must try to get into combat with as many models in the first unit as possible before being allowed to move into the second unit?

[Mr Mystery]

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?33003-IC-w-infiltrate-joining-units

read it, understand it, try not to be snide

apparently pg 166



again, issue unresolved

Let's try the full quote then?


An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in Reserve, by you informing your opponent of which unit it has joined


Units that contain at least one model with this special rule are deployed last, after all other units, friend or foe, have been deployed

So as I said, by the time the IC with Infiltrate is deployed, all other units without Infiltrate have either deployed, or been declared as being in Reserve. Therefore, there is no way for him to take a non-filtrating unit with him when he's sneaking about. They're all either on the board or held in Reserve.

Problem is very clearly solved.

[Gir]

Actually, an IC can join an infilitrating unit. Assuming the infiltrating unit deploys within 2" of your deployment zone.

[Caitsidhe]

It's a wee bit round the houses, but it seems pretty clear.

First, it can't be "around the houses" and pretty clear at the same time. It is either clear or it isn't. The fact that you are desperate to try and make the case that Games Workshop didn't drop the ball by NOT answering one of the simple questions that the entire community has been asking since 6th Edition comes back reflects on you. Your logic does not track. Infiltrate is written as a power which, like several others, can be conferred to an entire unit by the IC being within it. The value of Infiltrate happens at the start of the game, so writing it that way while disallowing being able to confer it would be moronic. So which do you prefer, that Games Workshop are morons who wrote a Universal Rule which teases that it does something but then disallows it through the labyrinthine argument you just made, or that they simply forgot AGAIN to clarify the question that is possible.

[Mr Mystery]

Or you could read the post above, which outlines the things.

And 'around the houses' refers to it being read from three seperate rules. IC, Infiltrate and Deployment.

Hardly Labyrinthine.

[Caitsidhe]

Or you could read the post above, which outlines the things.

And 'around the houses' refers to it being read from three seperate rules. IC, Infiltrate and Deployment.

Hardly Labyrinthine.

I know what "around the houses" means. If I have to go to three different rules to try and figure out how one simple situation works, that is not clear. It is by definition, labyrinthine. I also read what you wrote above and like most people asking that question, don't find your argument compelling. You have to make an argument and support it because the facts are unclear. Simply admit that GW failed to clearly answer this question. You, yourself, didn't seem to understand the question anymore than Games Workshop did. I think that is also very telling about you. It is almost as if you, like someone who works for Games Workshop, didn't understand the issue and like them you might not have answered it in the book. :D It is almost like someone getting defensive about work they are associated with and defending it at all costs.

[Mr Mystery]

An argument need not be compelling, if it is correct.

Deployment rules are that Infiltrators deploy last. Therefore, anyone without Infiltrate will either be a) on the board already b) in Reserve.

You can't hold back a non-infiltrating unit other than in Reserve. And once in Reserve, they're stuck there until at least the 2nd turn (army rules not permitting).

So please explain precisely how you propose an IC can infiltrate alongside a unit without Infiltrate.

[Throne Agent]

First, it can't be "around the houses" and pretty clear at the same time. It is either clear or it isn't. The fact that you are desperate to try and make the case that Games Workshop didn't drop the ball by NOT answering one of the simple questions that the entire community has been asking since 6th Edition comes back reflects on you. Your logic does not track. Infiltrate is written as a power which, like several others, can be conferred to an entire unit by the IC being within it. The value of Infiltrate happens at the start of the game, so writing it that way while disallowing being able to confer it would be moronic. So which do you prefer, that Games Workshop are morons who wrote a Universal Rule which teases that it does something but then disallows it through the labyrinthine argument you just made, or that they simply forgot AGAIN to clarify the question that is possible.

Calm down on the hate, so similar USRs are written in a similar way, its a pretty simple rule and the only people who had a problem with it in 6th were those trying to twist it to their advantage.

An IC can confer a special rule to a unit he joins, yes, if he joins that unit.

How does an IC join a unit, by starting a movement phase, or being deployed, within 2" of a model in that unit OR by Reserves, whereyou can join an IC to a unit if you tell your opponent you're doing so.

Now, to use Infiltrate, you can't be in Reserve, so the latter option is out.

To join a unit, the IC must be deployed, if the IC deploys within 2" of a unit (or a unit deploys within 2" of the IC)then it can't deploy with Infiltrate.

Therefore, although the IC can confer Infiltrate to a unit, he can't do so in a way that makes any difference, just because the mechanic exists that USRs can pass over to the unit, doesn't mean they all have an effect.

[Caitsidhe]

An argument need not be compelling, if it is correct.

Deployment rules are that Infiltrators deploy last. Therefore, anyone without Infiltrate will either be a) on the board already b) in Reserve.

You can't hold back a non-infiltrating unit other than in Reserve. And once in Reserve, they're stuck there until at least the 2nd turn (army rules not permitting).

So please explain precisely how you propose an IC can infiltrate alongside a unit without Infiltrate.


The better question is why write the Universal Special Rule in a way that infers that it is conveyed to the entire unit like Shrouding, when reading the rules as you have would seem to say it can't. Wouldn't it have been clearer to write said rule leaving that bit about giving the ability to the unit OUT if it works the way you imply? :D That would have been clear. That would have clearly stated that only units (IC or otherwise) that start with Infiltrate can ever have Infiltrate).

[Throne Agent]

The better question is why write the Universal Special Rule in a way that infers that it is conveyed to the entire unit like Shrouding, when reading the rules as you have would seem to say it can't. Wouldn't it have been clearer to write said rule leaving that bit about giving the ability to the unit OUT if it works the way you imply? :D That would have been clear. That would have clearly stated that only units (IC or otherwise) that start with Infiltrate can ever have Infiltrate).

because this way, if there ever were a situation where you needed to know if the unit had infiltrate, like if it was in a campaign and that was important, or a custom scenario, then you know that the unit the IC is in has Infiltrate, logically it doesn't cause any issues unless you choose to decide it is an issue, like you're doing.

[jd2x.pacman]

I have never understood the confusion over this. If a unit does not have infiltrate, it cannot be held until the step where infiltrators are placed. IC's either join units once deployed by being in coherence or are declared to be joined in reserve. So, a unit without infiltrate either deploys and is then joined by an IC, or is reserved and joined by an IC, but is not capable of being held back until infiltration, because they never have the rule.

[Mr Mystery]

Could it be clearer? Sure.

Is there any way you can read what is there and rationally conclude that ICs are assigned to units prior to either being on the board already? Not without some very creative reading and wonky logic.

[This Dave]

I got to look at a copy of the rulebook and am EXTREMELY annoyed that they still have the same bad wording for vehicles firing Ordnance. The only mention of it is under vehicles moving and firing Ordnance so GW still means for stationary vehicles to be able to fire Ordnance and all their other weapons normally. But because of the one line that says all other weapons must fire as Snap Shots most everyone will insist that any time a vehicle fires Ordnance all its other weapons can only Snap Shoot.

Guess it's back to writing them every week to get them to FAQ it.

[Katharon]

Also, they now have directly referenced ordnance weapons and units firing them. We're back to not being able to fire ordnance and all other weapons at normal ballistic skill. TD, re-read that part. There is a sentence that has nothing to do with moving. It simply says that they can't fire ordnance. I'm going to end up calling GW just to get a clear answer on this.

[Mr Mystery]

That's what the rules say though?

A stationary vehicle can fire all its weapons.

But, 'a vehicle that fires an Ordnance Weapon can only make snap shots with it's other weapons that turn', as per Pp 73 under heading 'Vehicles and Ordnance Weapons'.

[Katharon]

That's what the rules say though?

A stationary vehicle can fire all its weapons.

But, 'a vehicle that fires an Ordnance Weapon can only make snap shots with it's other weapons that turn', as per Pp 73 under heading 'Vehicles and Ordnance Weapons'.


Bingo. I hate it. I hate it, hate it, hate it, hate it, HATE IT.

Give me back my Lumbering Behemouth!

[Gir]

The better question is why write the Universal Special Rule in a way that infers that it is conveyed to the entire unit like Shrouding, when reading the rules as you have would seem to say it can't. Wouldn't it have been clearer to write said rule leaving that bit about giving the ability to the unit OUT if it works the way you imply? :D That would have been clear. That would have clearly stated that only units (IC or otherwise) that start with Infiltrate can ever have Infiltrate).

If you have an ability that lets you redeploy infilitrators (or other units), you can deploy your IC with an infiltrating squad in your deployment zone, then redeploy as if they all have infiltrate.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

But as per The Rules, there's no way to hold back a unit without Infiltrate until units with Infiltrate deploy.

[Blood Shadow]

Just noticed that Priests do have to test on their own Ld of 7 and not the highest Ld in the squad.....lots more priests being taken then. Inquisitorial henchmen with multiple priests?

[daboarder]

mystery despite you seeming to decide that after 2 years you have found a solution to the problem that no one else had, people better versed in the rules than you or I disagree, the rule is still completely up in the air as none of the wording has changed the logic train you are talking about still breaks the game if it is used in other situations and is therefore unclear.

[katanarahl]

So glad they stopped people being arses with grav guns and vehicle cover. God damn it of course they get a save and now the rules say that woohoo!!

[Throne Agent]

If you have an ability that lets you redeploy infilitrators (or other units), you can deploy your IC with an infiltrating squad in your deployment zone, then redeploy as if they all have infiltrate.

Also if you hold a unit in reserve and attach an IC with infiltrate, that unit can then arrive from outflank.

- - - Updated - - -


mystery despite you seeming to decide that after 2 years you have found a solution to the problem that no one else had, people better versed in the rules than you or I disagree, the rule is still completely up in the air as none of the wording has changed the logic train you are talking about still breaks the game if it is used in other situations and is therefore unclear.

"People better versed in the rules" need for talking down to the guy?

He's right, it's a simple thing to figure out and you're refusing to follow the logic. No one has even attempted to explain why Mr Mysterys reading, which is logical and references other rules to show how this rule works, instead you've attacked him and talking down to him or whined about GW. Deal with it, you're wrong, ICs can join units and give them infiltrate, they cant, however deploy with an infiltrate move with a unit that did not previously have infiltrate. It's clear and his logic follows.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Oh my gods, this Infiltrating question is quite possibly the worst thing I have ever read.

[daboarder]

He's right, it's a simple thing to figure out and you're refusing to follow the logic. No one has even attempted to explain why Mr Mysterys reading, which is logical and references other rules to show how this rule works, instead you've attacked him and talking down to him or whined about GW. Deal with it, you're wrong, ICs can join units and give them infiltrate, they cant, however deploy with an infiltrate move with a unit that did not previously have infiltrate. It's clear and his logic follows.

so you accept that IC can never be deployed inside a dedicated transport unless kept in reserve?

After all, the IC only has 2 ways to join a unit,
either be placed within 2 coherency (cant be because the unit is inside a transport)
Or
be declared to be in the unit and placed in reserves.

that is the argument you are using to prevetn IC passing infiltrate to a unit right?

edit:



"People better versed in the rules" need for talking down to the guy?

Actually I was just refering to mysteries statement that he wasnt fully caught up with the initial issue and why it was an issue, but sure whatever

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

No one is talking about dedicated transport... Except you.

[jd2x.pacman]

so you accept that IC can never be deployed inside a dedicated transport unless kept in reserve?

After all, the IC only has 2 ways to join a unit,
either be placed within 2 coherency (cant be because the unit is inside a transport)
Or
be declared to be in the unit and placed in reserves.

that is the argument you are using to prevetn IC passing infiltrate to a unit right?

edit:




Actually I was just refering to mysteries statement that he wasnt fully caught up with the initial issue and why it was an issue, but sure whatever

Considering that joining a unit in reserve automatically causes the unit and IC to arrive turn two (or later) in accord with all rules and restrictions, the whole IC, transports, reserves arguement is irrelevant to the infiltrate question, which is clearly disallowed when following the order of operations.

[daboarder]

Considering that joining a unit in reserve automatically causes the unit and IC to arrive turn two (or later) in accord with all rules and restrictions, the whole IC, transports, reserves arguement is irrelevant to the infiltrate question, which is clearly disallowed when following the order of operations.
JD the arguement isnt about reserves, I agree that is irrelevant. (I only mentioned it as it is the other way the rules work as written)

the question is, how do you place an IC in a dedicated transport?

You cannot join the unit until you are placed within 2, correct?

And only the unit the dedicated transport was purchased for may be deployed in it, correct?

Therefore an IC cannot be deployed in another units dedicated transport

Same logic train that prevents an IC passing infiltrate to a unit

edit: On another note, I dont actually give a flip which way this is ruled, I am pointing out that the rules are still either a) Ambiguous (because none of the wording has changed at all) Or B) contain logic fallacies.

[jd2x.pacman]

the unit is joined by the IC while in reserves. Which is allowed. A unit without infiltrate cannot be held to the infiltrate step because it must either be deployed normally or held in reserves. EG. My wraithguard do not have infiltrate- they must be deployed either normally or held back, which will never give Illic a chance to confer his infiltrate to them in time to use the rule.

[daboarder]

An independent character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit cohrerency with it, or if the unit is in reserve, by you informing your opponent of which unit it has joined.

In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within 2 unit coherency distance of a friendly unit....


The Only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it) (See above for how this happens).

emphasis added by me.

Reconcile those two rules in a way that would not also be appropriate for IC giving infiltrate to a unit without it.

EDIT: JD: Reserves is not the question the question is how do you reconcile the above two rules when the dedicated transport is NOT in reserve?

[jd2x.pacman]

"Dear opponent, my IC is joining x unit in a drop pod." IC joins unit in reserve in a dedicated transport which is now carrying the unit it was selected for plus the IC that joined it. I think you are finding issues where there are none.

Meh. I really dont care though. No one in my group is prick enough to try to manipulate the rules. In fact, we actually enjoy ourselves when we play games (gasp). Any rules questions tend to be solved like this- "Not sure how this goes... how does this sound?" (insert fair and fun interpretation here). Its more enjoyable when you dont let a few ambiguous rules ruin your day.

[jd2x.pacman]

A dedicated transport must be deployed the same way as the unit it was bought for. If the unit is in reserves the DT must be as well and vice versa. This was in the 6th ed BRB FAQs (I think). I will confess I dont have the new rulebook yet, so if the same FAQ'd error is on the new book that is pretty shoddy. Regardless it was addressed. If I'm still misunderstanding your arguement, then oh well. I guess the main reason I dont mind ICs in transports is its not nearly as open to abuse as ICs giving units infiltrate. It also seems that the rules do support my thoughts, but GW is certainly not that great at expressing their intent sometimes. Ive never played in a tourney setting so these sorts of things being 100% clear cut arent so important to me. As I said before, friendly agreements seem the best way to solve a rules quandary, short of clear direction from GW.
Still loving the game though, nothing better than hanging out with friends and rolling dice.

[John Bower]

Graviton Weapons and Cover saves for vehicles - Got resolved (vehicles now 'do' get cover saves from them - rightly so imho.

- - - Updated - - -

Personally I agree with the school of thought that 'no' they can't give them 'infiltrate' for the reasons of how they join, it is only TFG that wants to bend the rule again making an issue of it.

A/ Does unit have infiltrate? NO
B/ When does said unit deploy? During normal deployment
C/ When can the character join them that has 'infiltrate'? When the unit deploys
D/ Can the unit be used to infiltrate? No, they are already deployed

It's deliberately done that way - otherwise you would have some pretty OP infiltrating units would you not? People would be putting an infiltrating Character with such things as TH/SS terminators out of LoS and then moving out into the open just in time to charge in and butcher a command squad for FB and STW in one go. Or I'm sure there's likely a Tau character that would let Riptides infiltrate.....

[Charon]

The issue is clear and he's understanding it, ICs can pass Infiltrate on to a unit, by being deployed within 2" of them or joining them while in reserves. However, to do either of those things, you can't Infiltrate the IC.

Ok. So you cant deploy your Terminator Captain in a Landraider either. As you either have to deploy the Termies in the Landraider first (and the Captain cant be placed in squadcoherency) or the captain first.

[Katharon]

Ok. So you cant deploy your Terminator Captain in a Landraider either. As you either have to deploy the Termies in the Landraider first (and the Captain cant be placed in squadcoherency) or the captain first.

Easy solution:

1) put the Land Raider where you want it.

2) Put your IC directly behind it, so far up the exhaust that he can check just how well the oil is treating the engine.

3) On your turn, hopefully first turn, you pivot the land raider (which doesn't count as moving), put the IC inside, pivot back, and then go in the direction that you wanted to go in.

---------


Truthfully I believe that you should be able to put any unit into any damn thing (so long as they match the requirements for being able to get inside a transport and that you do not ignore transport capacity) -- it's just an extra level of time wasting that goes on when you have to start the game and spend five extra minutes doing the little dance I made out above.

[Charon]

Easy solution:

1) put the Land Raider where you want it.

2) Put your IC directly behind it, so far up the exhaust that he can check just how well the oil is treating the engine.

3) On your turn, hopefully first turn, you pivot the land raider (which doesn't count as moving), put the IC inside, pivot back, and then go in the direction that you wanted to go in.

---------


Truthfully I believe that you should be able to put any unit into any damn thing (so long as they match the requirements for being able to get inside a transport and that you do not ignore transport capacity) -- it's just an extra level of time wasting that goes on when you have to start the game and spend five extra minutes doing the little dance I made out above.

Your easy solution is against the rules. Also boarding a vehicle slows it down.
According to the logic applied by some of the guys above an IC cant start in any dedicated transport.

[Katharon]

Your easy solution is against the rules. Also boarding a vehicle slows it down.
According to the logic applied by some of the guys above an IC cant start in any dedicated transport.

My solution is not against the rules. In any way.

[Charon]

You put the Landraider where you want it.
Then you put your IC behind it.
Then you turn and find out that a unit can only embark/disembark before or after a vehicle has moved INCLUDING TURNS ON THE SPOT (as the rules clearly say)
So your IC is embarked and your Landraider ended its movement.

So please look up the rules if you want discuss rules. thnx.

[daboarder]

You put the Landraider where you want it.
Then you put your IC behind it.
Then you turn and find out that a unit can only embark/disembark before or after a vehicle has moved INCLUDING TURNS ON THE SPOT (as the rules clearly say)
So your IC is embarked and your Landraider ended its movement.

So please look up the rules if you want discuss rules. thnx.


Easy Charon, that pivot part may be new this edition, Furthermore, I may be wrong but Katharon is agreeing that if you accept the deployment rules arent ambiguous then you cant start IC inside dedicated transports

[Charon]

Nope the pivot rules where also in in 6th with exact the same wording. Turns on the spot are clearly mentioned.

[John Bower]

JD the arguement isnt about reserves, I agree that is irrelevant. (I only mentioned it as it is the other way the rules work as written)

the question is, how do you place an IC in a dedicated transport?

You cannot join the unit until you are placed within 2, correct?

And only the unit the dedicated transport was purchased for may be deployed in it, correct?

Therefore an IC cannot be deployed in another units dedicated transport

Same logic train that prevents an IC passing infiltrate to a unit

edit: On another note, I dont actually give a flip which way this is ruled, I am pointing out that the rules are still either a) Ambiguous (because none of the wording has changed at all) Or B) contain logic fallacies.

Wrong, completely wrong, you haven't read the Independent Character wording exacltly as written have you? It says that a character can start the game already with a unit by being deployed 'in coherency', nothing about 2", In coherency can in fact mean 'in' the transport/building etc. The difference with infiltrate is that the character would be deployed 'after' the unit, whereas he has to be deployed 'with' the unit to grant infiltrate, but the unit would have to already be deployed. I guess it may be a mistake on wording again, it would be better if it was their intent to grant infiltrate to declare which characters were joining which units prior to choosing warlord traits or prior to the 'deployment' phase or whatever they call that part, in any case prior to the start of the game. My gut feeling is they may have done it to stop WAAC players using characters to grant infiltrate to stupidly powerful units. Ofc it could just be an oversight too.

[daboarder]

Wrong, completely wrong, you haven't read the Independent Character wording exacltly as written have you? It says that a character can start the game already with a unit by being deployed 'in coherency', nothing about 2", In coherency can in fact mean 'in' the transport/building etc. The difference with infiltrate is that the character would be deployed 'after' the unit, whereas he has to be deployed 'with' the unit to grant infiltrate, but the unit would have to already be deployed. I guess it may be a mistake on wording again, it would be better if it was their intent to grant infiltrate to declare which characters were joining which units prior to choosing warlord traits or prior to the 'deployment' phase or whatever they call that part, in any case prior to the start of the game. My gut feeling is they may have done it to stop WAAC players using characters to grant infiltrate to stupidly powerful units. Ofc it could just be an oversight too.

ok being in coherency, can you quote the definition of coherency?

Actually, I'll do it for you.


Unit Coherency page 19

Once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and 6" up

[daboarder]

Unit coherency is pretty simple, as it has been the same for every edition since I joined. Within at least 2" of the unit.
thank you for making the point TDA

[daboarder]

cool, now reconcile what you just wrote with sticking an independent character inside a dedicated transport that is NOT in reserves, quote the rules as you do it

believe me when I say that this is an argument that has been done to death, I even linked the 6th ed version of the discussion earlier. and you end up with situations where you cannot attach an IC to many units where it would make complete sense for them to be (ie sitting in a rhino) if you dont accept that there is a disconnect somewhere in the IC joing and the start of game rules.

I dont really care which way GW rules it but it is far from clear and I am not the only person willing to admit this. Go bring up your argument on 3++ and they will probably explain the situation far more eloquently than I can there.

edit: Thats fine TDA, this isnt what I'd call a pressing issue, when you do have the time and inclination feel free to respond.

[Tynskel]

Are you guys still arguing about deploying infiltrators with infiltrators?
Seriously?
Why is this so hard?

1) does the IC have infiltrate
2) does the unit have infiltrate
3) may the IC's infiltrate be applied to a unit?
4) may the unit's infiltrate be applied to the IC?

if you qualify for these situations... place the IC and unit together...
wow... so hard.

[Caitsidhe]

My solution is not against the rules. In any way.

Actually, it might very well be. The IC would have to join the unit before they all entered the vehicle. It can enter the already loaded vehicle by itself to join them.

[Katharon]

Actually, it might very well be. The IC would have to join the unit before they all entered the vehicle. It can enter the already loaded vehicle by itself to join them.

An IC does not have to join a unit before it enters a transport. A unit that is already in a transport can be "joined" by an IC when it also enters the transport so long as there is transport space.

[Charon]

Yes. Which means he must enter the transport. So no moving more than 6" or flat out for the vehicle.

Both situations invoke the same rules. But no one ever discussed if it is ok if the IC starts in the transport. This is why the infiltration question comes up. Same rules, different interpretation even when both are used in the same game.

[Tynskel]

What is this nonsense?
Put that IC in the transport with the unit. As long as there is room, you can keep adding ICs...

[Mr Mystery]

Issue is specifically dedicated transports.

You can deploy into a transport no problem. But, Dedicated Transports can only have their owning unit aboard, plus 'any IC that have joined it'.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd say so, but I do see where the other school of thought is coming from.

[Mr Mystery]

so you accept that IC can never be deployed inside a dedicated transport unless kept in reserve?

After all, the IC only has 2 ways to join a unit,
either be placed within 2 coherency (cant be because the unit is inside a transport)
Or
be declared to be in the unit and placed in reserves.

that is the argument you are using to prevent IC passing infiltrate to a unit right?

It's similar, but different enough. I do however agree that as the rules stand, an IC cannot be deployed in a unit when that unit is deployed insider it's dedicated transport. Except if all three elements are held in Reserve.

Should they be able to? I guess. But the rules are clear, they can't. IC's can't join units until the IC is deployed within coherency, or it's declared they're joining when put in Reserve.

Dedicated Transports can only be deployed with their parent unit hitching a ride. Combine the two, and any DT deployed on the board can't offer a ride to an IC.

[Tynskel]

I'd say so, but I do see where the other school of thought is coming from.

There isn't another 'school of thought'—there is the 'school of I am a pain in the arse!'.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm not getting involved in any name calling.

There's no need for it on the forum in general. Heated debate is to be enjoyed. For mud slinging, sign up with Dakka.

[Caitsidhe]

It's similar, but different enough. I do however agree that as the rules stand, an IC cannot be deployed in a unit when that unit is deployed insider it's dedicated transport. Except if all three elements are held in Reserve.

Should they be able to? I guess. But the rules are clear, they can't. IC's can't join units until the IC is deployed within coherency, or it's declared they're joining when put in Reserve.

Dedicated Transports can only be deployed with their parent unit hitching a ride. Combine the two, and any DT deployed on the board can't offer a ride to an IC.

Thank you. I appreciate that you are not being hypocritical here. The way you are choosing to read the rules for Infiltrate, if applied consistently results in the same problem with the dedicated transports. For the record, neither daboarder nor myself are trying to argue for a side. Our stance has simply been that the question has not been answered. It could have been answered easily. It isn't about being a pain in the ***. It is about wanting the rules transparent and straightforward. Since everyone has been, for edition after edition, deploying their IC in dedicated transports, we have to assume that is possible. Games Workshop has certainly never corrected it and there are plenty of battle reports showing them doing so as well. Thus, if we use that "like situation" as a guide, Infiltration should (for the sake of consistency) apply the same to Infiltrate. Ultimately, it would be nice if they just answered the question. It is a question that has been asked often and with great enthusiasm. Kirby, who posted some stuff at 3++, took the words right out of my mouth when he got to that section of the rules and found they still hadn't answered the question.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm just going with what the rules say.

The IC Infiltrate question to me makes sense. It's spread over two pages (165 and 166), under the entries for IC and Infiltrate (there's no need to check the deployment rules in particular, as the stuff I lifted from that page is covered under the sections above).

The transport is a little more vague, but again from my professional life, I have to apply a consistent approach. And that means 'no, IC's can bundle into DT's on deployment'.

[daboarder]

Thank you. I appreciate that you are not being hypocritical here. The way you are choosing to read the rules for Infiltrate, if applied consistently results in the same problem with the dedicated transports. For the record, neither daboarder nor myself are trying to argue for a side. Our stance has simply been that the question has not been answered. It could have been answered easily. It isn't about being a pain in the ***. It is about wanting the rules transparent and straightforward. Since everyone has been, for edition after edition, deploying their IC in dedicated transports, we have to assume that is possible. Games Workshop has certainly never corrected it and there are plenty of battle reports showing them doing so as well. Thus, if we use that "like situation" as a guide, Infiltration should (for the sake of consistency) apply the same to Infiltrate. Ultimately, it would be nice if they just answered the question. It is a question that has been asked often and with great enthusiasm. Kirby, who posted some stuff at 3++, took the words right out of my mouth when he got to that section of the rules and found they still hadn't answered the question.

what he said.


It's similar, but different enough. I do however agree that as the rules stand, an IC cannot be deployed in a unit when that unit is deployed insider it's dedicated transport. Except if all three elements are held in Reserve.

Should they be able to? I guess. But the rules are clear, they can't. IC's can't join units until the IC is deployed within coherency, or it's declared they're joining when put in Reserve.

Dedicated Transports can only be deployed with their parent unit hitching a ride. Combine the two, and any DT deployed on the board can't offer a ride to an IC.

And Mystery, if that is the way you want to apply the rules, then I can respect that.

[Katharon]

Yes. Which means he must enter the transport. So no moving more than 6" or flat out for the vehicle.

Both situations invoke the same rules. But no one ever discussed if it is ok if the IC starts in the transport. This is why the infiltration question comes up. Same rules, different interpretation even when both are used in the same game.


If the transport did not move before the IC got inside it, then it can still move 6" or Flat Out. Or a vehicle can move flat out and an IC can get inside it if it is able to make its own movement to get within 2" of the entryways.

- - - Updated - - -

And the rule has always been that only the unit that has bought a transport can be inside it at deployment. Whenever your first turn begins, you can then have other units, ICs, etc, be in the transport so long as it does not violate the transport capacity or the rule that no two units (non-ICs) can occupy the same transport.

Which is where my solution from page 3 or 4 comes into action.

[daboarder]

And the rule has always been that only the unit that has bought a transport can be inside it at deployment. Whenever your first turn begins, you can then have other units, ICs, etc, be in the transport so long as it does not violate the transport capacity or the rule that no two units (non-ICs) can occupy the same transport.

Which is where my solution from page 3 or 4 comes into action.

The problem is, that both the dedicated transport rules (which actually stipulate that joined IC can be in a transport, the problem is how to join them), and the infiltrate rules (which contain the specific wording used by IC to pass special rules to units, and contain the specific limitation to this that ICs cannot join units that are infiltrating if they dont have it,But make no mention of the alternative, so why do they need to stipulate against one side and not the other?) would seem to imply that there is a way for ICs to join a squad during deployment in both these situations, however the Deployment rules contradict this and they do so in such a way that really is illogical.

Mystery you made the point in the obillete that an alternative has not been presented. I will do so now.

The alternative is that you accept that the RAI is that IC can begin the game joined to a unit (as stated above), and you accept that the "coherency" stipulation is broken.
Then you have ICs that can ride to battle in their retinues transport and ICs that are skilled enough infiltrators to lead a squad into a forward position. neither of these are game breaking nor are they particularly jarring, certainly not in the way that disallowing ICs in transports is.

[DWest]

Question: does Infiltrate still permit the unit to Outflank? Because it sounds like you should still be able to use an IC with Infiltrate to give a unit Outflank.

[daboarder]

yeah it does, yes they can (un-ambiguously) as then they are in reserve, and yes that could be the reason for infiltrate containing the "if one or more" clause

the wording on restriction is that


An independent character without the infiltrate special rule, cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment

So its still also up in the air if an IC can join a unit that is outflanking, if it gained that rule from the infiltrate special rule. I would say that the change in wording and reference to the action "infiltrating" means that you can however.

[katanarahl]

I know what gw answer to this would be. "there is no ambiguity in the rule".

Dedicated transport pg 82 paragrqph 4 "The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characyers that have joined it).

That is your permission to start in a dedicated transport if yiu need it. Your suggestig that by being a a transport the IC is not within unit coherency so my IC is not within 2" if he is not inside the transport dont really understand the confusion here since being in the transport the IC is practically holding hands..

By the way rules for pivoting specigically states its doesnt count towards moving so a transport can pivot and pivk up a character then move cus it hasnt yet. But on a side not if ir has moved and picks up a dude then it specifcally says you cant pivit any more strangly ha

Im inclined to agree with the line of thinking that you cant infilatrate a non-infiltrating unit woth a character that has infiltrate as its different deployment steps which is a shame but hey its a game id prefer to have fun. Peopeple who have a real issue with this head to a throne of skulls and ask the events staff for a ruling to ger it then and there :)

[Charon]

"The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characyers that have joined it).

Here is the issue.
You cant joint the unit before deployment (unless reserve). So you either have to place the transport firts, or the IC first. In both cases he cant maintain squad coherency as there is no squad on the table and he is not permitted to start in the transport as the transport was not selected for him.

[Throne Agent]

Ok. So you cant deploy your Terminator Captain in a Landraider either. As you either have to deploy the Termies in the Landraider first (and the Captain cant be placed in squadcoherency) or the captain first.

This is correct, yes.

- - - Updated - - -


Here is the issue.
You cant joint the unit before deployment (unless reserve). So you either have to place the transport firts, or the IC first. In both cases he cant maintain squad coherency as there is no squad on the table and he is not permitted to start in the transport as the transport was not selected for him.

Yeah, he can't start in a Dedicated Transport, he can join one in Reserves. Or he can deplopy next to it and board before it moves first turn, whats the problem? Its pretty clear.

[RGilbert26]

I'm not really sure where you're getting that a IC can't join a unit within their DT.

"If an IC and a unit are both embarked upon the same vehicle, they are automatically joined, just as if the IC was within 2" of the unit." P.g 81

"The only limitation of a DT is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any ICs that joined it)." P.g 82

Really don't see an issue here.

EDIT: What it says on P.g 135 with Combined Reserve Units does not affect ICs joining units and deploying in their DTs.

[Charon]

If an IC and a unit are both embarked upon the same vehicle

According to deployment rules this is not possible as you dont deploy them together.
You can either physically place the transport and THEN place the IC (which cant be IN the transport as he cant join the unit before he is deployed) or you place the IC first and he also cant joint the unit.

Im 100% sure that RAI allows to joint them before deployment and let them deploy together. But this also suggests that this would also be RAI for an Infiltration IC joining an unit of non-infiltrators giving his ability to the unit.

[katanarahl]

I'm not really sure where you're getting that a IC can't join a unit within their DT.

"If an IC and a unit are both embarked upon the same vehicle, they are automatically joined, just as if the IC was within 2" of the unit." P.g 81

"The only limitation of a DT is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any ICs that joined it)." P.g 82

Really don't see an issue here.

EDIT: What it says on P.g 135 with Combined Reserve Units does not affect ICs joining units and deploying in their DTs.
I agree I dont know where they are getting it from.either there logic basically says nothing can deploy in a transport at all...

The rule specifically talks about how you can do it in the dedicated transport section. I thunk id laughed out of any gaming club if i tried to say that IC cant deploy in a dedicated transport haha

[Tynskel]

I'm not getting involved in any name calling.

There's no need for it on the forum in general. Heated debate is to be enjoyed. For mud slinging, sign up with Dakka.

bwahahahahah
This is not a heated debate.

We have already resolved the 'non-issue'.

This is not arguing over a word usage that was not defined in the rulebook.
ex.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?15051-Deep-strike-and-Combat-squads

Instead, this is an 'argument' where one side completely ignores anything that could undermine their argument.

[daboarder]

Tynskel your posts have served no purpose in this thread other than to belittle people, go away

edit: Nice edit, not sure how the relevance of combat squads from an argument from 2 editions ago is though. But at least its some form of contribution

[-Tom-]

I agree I dont know where they are getting it from.either there logic basically says nothing can deploy in a transport at all...

The rule specifically talks about how you can do it in the dedicated transport section. I thunk id laughed out of any gaming club if i tried to say that IC cant deploy in a dedicated transport haha

I agree with you that it makes sense for an IC to be able to be included in the *dedicated* transport (dedicated is important there), and you should notice that daboarder and Charon are both also saying that they think that would be Read-as-Intended in the rules.

However, Read-As-Written there is a problem, stemming from the order that you do things in - you have picked your army list pre-game, the squad that have the dedicated transport are in the dedicated transport, the IC is not in that squad. He can't join the squad without being within 2" of them, or being in the transport with them. He can't be in the transport with them because he isn't in their squad so can't be in their dedicated transport. He can only join with them if they are kept in reserves (so, not deployed), or once the game begins by being within 2" of them and then getting into the transport. By this time, of course, they must have already been deployed if not being kept in reserves.

The point that they are making is that there is a similar lack of clarity to be seen in the rules for infiltration, and passing the rule from an IC to a squad. They're not even then arguing the case specifically either way for either of the rules, but are more playing devil's advocate (in the case of transports they are having to spell out how the rules-as-written disallow it, because it is contrary to what makes sense intuitively so that is an uphill battle for them). Their point is that it would have been really easy, what with a whole new edition being launched, to have clarified the issue(s) by more explicit statements in the rules.

[Tynskel]

Tynskel your posts have served no purpose in this thread other than to belittle people, go away

edit: Nice edit, not sure how the relevance of combat squads from an argument from 2 editions ago is though. But at least its some form of contribution

oh, and you didn't read what I said: it is not like we are arguing about a word that is not defined by the rulebook. Hence the combat squads example. The word not defined by the rulebook was 'deploy'.


Not true.
I solved the problem already at post #58.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45334-What-was-the-issue-and-has-it-been-fixed&p=423763&viewfull=1#post423763

yet, we are at post #83

[Charon]

Tom is right about this.
In my opinion both feel correct (IC leading a squad to a forward position, IC starting in Vehicle with squad) and my gaming group plays it like this.
The reason why I bring this example so often is more to show how biased the community is when it comes to "I enforce this rule because I dont like infiltrating X but at the same time I ignore it because I like my IC to start in a dedicated transport".

[This Dave]

Also, they now have directly referenced ordnance weapons and units firing them. We're back to not being able to fire ordnance and all other weapons at normal ballistic skill. TD, re-read that part. There is a sentence that has nothing to do with moving. It simply says that they can't fire ordnance. I'm going to end up calling GW just to get a clear answer on this.

Actually, I did get to re-read it. And the rule is under the section "Moving and Shooting with Vehicles". So once again if you read the rules as a whole the Ordnance thing only applies to vehicles that move. But once again most people are only going to read the one line and say that applies to vehicles all the time.

So IMO stationary vehicles can shoot a Ordnance and all other weapons at full effect so Leman Russes can shoot Battle Cannons and everything on the move. Now to try to get GW to FAQ it to get those who won't read the whole page to accept it.

[daboarder]

Actually, I did get to re-read it. And the rule is under the section "Moving and Shooting with Vehicles". So once again if you read the rules as a whole the Ordnance thing only applies to vehicles that move. But once again most people are only going to read the one line and say that applies to vehicles all the time.

So IMO stationary vehicles can shoot a Ordnance and all other weapons at full effect so Leman Russes can shoot Battle Cannons and everything on the move. Now to try to get GW to FAQ it to get those who won't read the whole page to accept it.

that paragraph deals with how vehicles that move a "category" of distances handle firing ordinance. Not moving at all is still covered under these rules as you have had your movement the distance is jsut zero and therefore your movement "category" is stationary

Is there any rules that address vehicles firing ordinance elsewhere? throw up the quotes.


Tom is right about this.
In my opinion both feel correct (IC leading a squad to a forward position, IC starting in Vehicle with squad) and my gaming group plays it like this.
The reason why I bring this example so often is more to show how biased the community is when it comes to "I enforce this rule because I dont like infiltrating X but at the same time I ignore it because I like my IC to start in a dedicated transport".

Yes, this, and Tom thank you for providing a 3rd perspective on our point, often times these threads get caught up such that people are unwilling to read what others post and having a 3rd party re-iterate the situation can be very helpful

[Tynskel]

Yes, this, and Tom thank you for providing a 3rd perspective on our point, often times these threads get caught up such that people are unwilling to read what others post and having a 3rd party re-iterate the situation can be very helpful

I must be the 4th wheel...

[Caitsidhe]

I must be the 4th wheel...

You are the flat tire.

[DarkLink]

oh, and you didn't read what I said: it is not like we are arguing about a word that is not defined by the rulebook. Hence the combat squads example. The word not defined by the rulebook was 'deploy'.

You think people remember that whole combat squad argument. No one actually cares.

[Throne Agent]

that paragraph deals with how vehicles that move a "category" of distances handle firing ordinance. Not moving at all is still covered under these rules as you have had your movement the distance is jsut zero and therefore your movement "category" is stationary

Is there any rules that address vehicles firing ordinance elsewhere? throw up the quotes.



Yes, this, and Tom thank you for providing a 3rd perspective on our point, often times these threads get caught up such that people are unwilling to read what others post and having a 3rd party re-iterate the situation can be very helpful

"A 3rd person agrees with my wonky reading of the rules that isn't based on the rulebook but vague feelings about what i think the rules should be, therefore I'm right"

Except, you're not. And it makes no sense And IC leading a squad to a forward position, except that squad aren't training in such maneuvers and would give away their position. Infiltrating Bullgryns?

[RGilbert26]

Which page has the deployment order as I can't find anything which says you can't deploy your IC with a squad in their DT.

[-Tom-]

"A 3rd person agrees with my wonky reading of the rules that isn't based on the rulebook but vague feelings about what i think the rules should be, therefore I'm right"

Except, you're not. And it makes no sense And IC leading a squad to a forward position, except that squad aren't training in such maneuvers and would give away their position. Infiltrating Bullgryns?

It now seems to me like you feel you've got yourself into some sort of internet pissing contest and have to save face? My previous post was from one of a '3rd party/impartial observer' not a '3rd person agreeing', and I believe that daboarder meant this when he said '3rd party'.

Personally, I had previously deployed IC's inside dedicated transports with squads that I intended them to be part of. It turns out that I may have been wrong to do so. (I can see the logic in the rules, as written, not allowing it). It makes sense to me to do so.

However, it also makes sense to me that no matter how stealthy the IC is, that he didn't ought to be able to get certain troop types, like Bullgryns, to be sneaking around.

It also makes sense to me that troops who are better at shooting in the first place, with higher BS, ought to still be better at shooting really hard to hit things, like flyers, so a -2 to BS rather than all just being BS1, makes sense to me. But... that isn't what the rule is. So, it doesn't necessarily matter as to 'what makes sense'. At the end of the day there are rules that are written down in the rule book. Some are clear. Some are not.

And, so, I come back to reiterate the point that I made before, the specific rule being discussed here is one of those unclear ones. Sure, you have decided what the answer is in your own mind and can justify it, but so can people arguing the other way. So, it surely wouldn't hurt to have had it clarified officially, would it? Imagine how easily this whole argument could be resolved with a response from GW HQ saying "Ahh, yes, <x> is what we intended here, and no, you can't do <y>". And, the original discontent with this (again, as I said in my previous post), was that the opportunity hadn't been taken while releasing the new book to clear up the issue.

[Mr Mystery]

Tom is right about this.
In my opinion both feel correct (IC leading a squad to a forward position, IC starting in Vehicle with squad) and my gaming group plays it like this.
The reason why I bring this example so often is more to show how biased the community is when it comes to "I enforce this rule because I dont like infiltrating X but at the same time I ignore it because I like my IC to start in a dedicated transport".

And that in itself isn't the issue, as long as all those actually involved in the game agree.

Me? I don't really get infiltrating characters, so I'd be less inclined to let my opponent alter that particular one.

IC's in Transports? Now that I can do with Ghost Arks, so as both sides stand to benefit, no issue there.

[This Dave]

that paragraph deals with how vehicles that move a "category" of distances handle firing ordinance. Not moving at all is still covered under these rules as you have had your movement the distance is jsut zero and therefore your movement "category" is stationary

Is there any rules that address vehicles firing ordinance elsewhere? throw up the quotes.

Thus my annoyance with GW and their obtuse wording. That paragraph is under the section on page 486 of the iBooks version of the codex with the header "Moving and Shooting with Vehicles". The first line of the paragraph about Ordnance involves moving and shooting with Ordnance so it tracks that the rest of that paragraph also deals with moving and shooting.

But since reading only one line out of an entire paragraph is all that matters under Heavy Vehicles it says:


“Shooting with ​
Heavy Vehicles
For the purposes of determining which weapons a Heavy vehicle can fire (and at what Ballistic Skill), Heavy vehicles are always treated as having remained Stationary”

If you click on the Stationary hotlink it says:

“A vehicle that remained Stationary can fire all of its weapons (remember that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving).”

So yes, there is still that one line which if read by itself out of the middle of a paragraph says firing Ordnance makes all other weapons fire as Snap Shots. But reading it in context of the section of rules it's in it only makes sense that it refers to firing Ordnance on the move. Add to that the circumstantial evidence of all the photos of LR tanks in the AM codex and the rulebook with sponson weapons that wouldn't actually be able to fire if they had to Snap Shoot so taking them is pointless on a Battlecannon armed vehicle. And while GW is known for goofy rules it makes absolutely NO sense for the "most common" version of the tank to be more expensive points wise and less capable than other variants.

My group is going with the rules of Fun and the rules of English and saying that stationary vehicles can fire Ordnance without affecting the BS of it's other weapons. Feel free to play it differently.

[RGilbert26]

Still can't find anything which says that an IC can not join a unit which has a DT before deployment or join it when deploying etc.

What's the page number which says this?

[Mr Mystery]

It's how you deploy them.

A DT can only carry it's own unit on deployment. Which means it's deployed on the board as a single entity. You then deploy the character. But, there's no way to place him in coherency to join the unit, and thus be able to join the ride.

You CAN do this with units in Reserve, as the joining rules are specific.

[Throne Agent]

Still can't find anything which says that an IC can not join a unit which has a DT before deployment or join it when deploying etc.

What's the page number which says this?

Page 166, clearly states that an IC can begin the game joined to a squad in 2 ways. By being deployed within unit coherency of the unit, or by being put in Reserve with the unit and informing your opponent.

Thats it.

Since you can't deploy into a transport at the start of a game, and you'd have to be within the transport to be in coherency of the unit, you can only join by putting it in Reserve, or by not deploying the unit in their Transport.

So you can't join him to the unit "because you think he should be" or because you really want him to Infiltrate with a squad. Or you can, but you'll have to houserule it, which is great and fine, but, you won't see DarkLink going for that, because he hates houserules, unless he agrees with them of course.

This is also why you can't Infiltrate if the IC has it but the Unit doesn't, but you can Outflank. But since some "rules geniuses" want to think they're the better players who have a better understanding of the rules than people who play for fun,like myself or Mr Mystery, they try to argue it, because Internet.

[daboarder]

And that in itself isn't the issue, as long as all those actually involved in the game agree.

Me? I don't really get infiltrating characters, so I'd be less inclined to let my opponent alter that particular one.

IC's in Transports? Now that I can do with Ghost Arks, so as both sides stand to benefit, no issue there.

of course, but the initial point of all this, fun though its been, was that this was the same situation in 6th and unfortunately hasnt been changed in 7th, so whatever way everyone choose to play it is fine, there are compelling arguments either way.

[RGilbert26]

Hmm okay that is weird. I have a funny feeling what I've quoted was meant to be GWs answer to this problem but clearly not.

[Gir]

Page 166, clearly states that an IC can begin the game joined to a squad in 2 ways. By being deployed within unit coherency of the unit, or by being put in Reserve with the unit and informing your opponent.

Thats it.

Since you can't deploy into a transport at the start of a game

Why not? The rules state that when in a transport you count as being in coherency, so is there anything stopping you from deploying the transport, then deploying it's unit into it, then deploying the IC in the transport as well?

[RGilbert26]

I believe I've found the answer, red box, page 82, last paragraph:

"The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit it was siècle red with (plus any Independent Character that have joined it)."

I think we can say that that clears this up.

[Caitsidhe]

I believe I've found the answer, red box, page 82, last paragraph:

"The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit it was siècle red with (plus any Independent Character that have joined it)."

I think we can say that that clears this up.

Unfortunately that doesn't clear anything up. The IC still has to have "joined it" and that can only happen in two ways. That is the problem. Look, we ultimately don't care on how it is ruled, we merely were pointing out that there is no difference in this issue and the Infiltrate one. They should (and could) have cleared it up. I personally think both apply, i.e. you can deploy such characters in dedicated transports and that a character with Infiltrate can impart it to the unit. That is kind of the point. Either that or it doesn't work for either of them. The only other option would be an official contradictory ruling from Games Workshop allowing it for one but not the other.

[daboarder]

Hmm RGilbert, just a piece of advice. when quoting the rulebook its easier to read when ther rules are placed in quotation

ie:
Put the rule here there is a little button on the top right of the reply window that adds the code tags for you.

Furthermore its easier to quote the larger paragraph which provideds context and use the bold tags (as above) around the relevant text. Gives a better understanding of what exactly people are reading.

As to the rules I believe RG was refering to this,


If an Independent Character (or even more than one) and a unit are both embarked upon the same vehicle, they are automatically joined, just as if the Independent Character was within 2" of the unit. If either an Independent Character or a unit is already in a vehicle, the other may join them by embarking too (assuming, of course, that there is enough space).

And that, I think, is enough to give dedicated transports and ICs a clear out.

[RGilbert26]

I'm not sure why you think an Independent Character can join a unit of Infiltrators when the rules on page 166 clearly state -


Independent Characters and Infiltrate - An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment.

[daboarder]

We ar discussing that the other way around. Rg

[John Bower]

cool, now reconcile what you just wrote with sticking an independent character inside a dedicated transport that is NOT in reserves, quote the rules as you do it

believe me when I say that this is an argument that has been done to death, I even linked the 6th ed version of the discussion earlier. and you end up with situations where you cannot attach an IC to many units where it would make complete sense for them to be (ie sitting in a rhino) if you dont accept that there is a disconnect somewhere in the IC joing and the start of game rules.

I dont really care which way GW rules it but it is far from clear and I am not the only person willing to admit this. Go bring up your argument on 3++ and they will probably explain the situation far more eloquently than I can there.

edit: Thats fine TDA, this isnt what I'd call a pressing issue, when you do have the time and inclination feel free to respond.

It's simple, you're deploying both at the 'same time' he is part of the unit as they both deploy before the game begins correct? So he is already part of the unit as he is deployed at the same time they are in coherencey. However, this does not work for IC's with infiltrate as they would have to be deployed later than the unit, which would already have to be deployed, unless held in reserved in which case infiltrate is a moot point, it usually becomes 'outlfank' instead. The only reason the whole 'IC in a transport' comes up at all is the usual WAAC crowd trying to gain advantage from IC's conferring infiltrate and sticking them with potent OP units, which can't be done, so they try to 'bend' the argument against IC's joining transports; again probably for the WAAC purpose of killing the warlord on turn 1. Look it's quite simple how it's worded 'an IC can begin the game attached to a squad either by being placed in coherency..' , now you tell where in that sentence it says you place him 'after' you place the unit? It doesn't, so you can pick up the transport with the unit in and place him with the unit which are not on the table to begin with (unless you can somehow magically put them in the transport in which case I'll put him in with them). Simple.... Solved. You can't do that with infiltrate simply because either the unit would have to have deployed; he doesn't deploy in the normal part he deploys later in the infiltrate rules. Or they would be in reserve, in which case he can join them but now they outflank instead. it's worded like that to stop somebody dumping a unit in your face in turn 1 that can wipe you out. Geez and these are the same people that complain some Codexes are broken as it is, but you don't think having a Riptide sitting out of LoS 12" from you in turn 1 would be OP?

[Charon]

It's simple, you're deploying both at the 'same time' he is part of the unit as they both deploy before the game begins correct?

This part is incorrect. If it was like this it would be indeed simple. They dont deploy before the game begins (unless reserves) the is considered part of the unit when he physically deploys in squad coherency with the unit.
Which he cant when the unit is in a dedicated transport. And he cant be deployed in the transport to get into unit coherency bcause only the unit you buy the transport for may start in it.


The only reason the whole 'IC in a transport' comes up at all is the usual WAAC crowd trying to gain advantage from IC's conferring infiltrate and sticking them with potent OP units, which can't be done, so they try to 'bend' the argument against IC's joining transports; again probably for the WAAC purpose of killing the warlord on turn 1.

The reason why this comes up is because some WAAC crowd trying to gain an advantage by enforcing a rule on their opponent while ignoring the very same rule when it comes to their characters in transports. Both cant be done so they try to "bent" the rules so they are aloowed to ignore the very rule they expect to enforce on their opponent. Probably for the WAAC purpose to save their warlord from shooting.

Both is fine with me as lon as the rule remains consistent. We can agree to join the IC before the game starts so both will work or we can agree to fully enforce the rule so both wont work. However we wont agree on "one guy may break the rule and the other must obey it."

[Tynskel]

You are the flat tire.

Hey, I'm not the one trying to convince people that when the rulebook says that dedicated transports may have an IC on board that what it really means is that you cannot have the IC on board.

[Mr Mystery]

Hey, I'm not the one trying to convince people that when the rulebook says that dedicated transports may have an IC on board that what it really means is that you cannot have the IC on board.

Tynskel....IC can join a unit in a transport if declared in Reserves. Other than that, it can't be done. That's the rules we're quoting.

[daboarder]

Tynskel....IC can join a unit in a transport if declared in Reserves. Other than that, it can't be done. That's the rules we're quoting.

Actually RGilbert has provided a quote that seems to allow it.

Its enough that Im willing to change my own opinion on the matter.


If an Independent Character (or even more than one) and a unit are both embarked upon the same vehicle, they are automatically joined, just as if the Independent Character was within 2" of the unit. If either an Independent Character or a unit is already in a vehicle, the other may join them by embarking too (assuming, of course, that there is enough space).

[RGilbert26]

I presume you meant this as well?


The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Character that have joined it).

[daboarder]

I presume you meant this as well?

we already new about that one so I didnt bother re-quoting it, but yes that goes with the first one and the one in the IC section that states how they join by being in coherency (which the first quote shows that being placed in a transport counts as)

Furthermore that section shows how the order doesnt matter the unit or the IC can enter and leave the vehicle independently.

[Dave Mcturk]

i was hoping for some insights into the new edition rules.

but reference this argument about IC and dedicated transport there is a bit on P121 6th ed BRB under the heading:

DEPLOYING TRANSPORT VEHICLES that would seem to answer the debate.

[RGilbert26]

What was the issue?

Some players argued that because the wording for Ignores Cover said "wounds caused" then it meant that vehicles could not be harmed by weapons such as Flamers.

...and has it been fixed?

Page 165 -


Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds, Glancing hits or Penetrating hits cause by a weapon with the Ignores Cover special rule.

Finally we no longer have to listen to or read arguments on this stupid topic. All sane players with a good amount of common sense knew that vehicles could be hurt by Ignores Cover weapons such as Flamers.

[Tynskel]

but, that tree, which cannot stop the flamer against my soldier, totoalllly stops the flamer against a tank! The tank is just so much bigger than the tree that the tree acts very large and stops the flames!

[Katharon]

Flamers ignore cover...so how did this even ever become an issue? If a Heavy Flamer hits the rear end of a AV10 vehicle, it damn well can glance or pen dat arse -- with no cover saves allowed.

[RGilbert26]

It became an issue due to the wording of the rule because it said "Wounds caused..." so some people argued that it couldn't be used on vehicles as they don't have wounds, even though majority of players knew what GW meant and weren't being twits. Now GW have added glancing and penetrating hits to the wording it solves the 'issue'.

[The Tisroc]

I agree. It wasn't ever an issue. It was a pretty clear case of rules lawyers rules-lawyerin' ... folks knew what GW meant and yet chose to ignore it.


It became an issue due to the wording of the rule because it said "Wounds caused..." so some people argued that it couldn't be used on vehicles as they don't have wounds, even though majority of players knew what GW meant and weren't being twits. Now GW have added glancing and penetrating hits to the wording it solves the 'issue'.

[Katharon]

I hate our community sometimes...

[Charistoph]

I haven't gone through the entire thread, but this:

What was the issue?

Some players argued that because the wording for Ignores Cover said "wounds caused" then it meant that vehicles could not be harmed by weapons such as Flamers.

...and has it been fixed?

Page 165 -



Finally we no longer have to listen to or read arguments on this stupid topic. All sane players with a good amount of common sense knew that vehicles could be hurt by Ignores Cover weapons such as Flamers.

Also covers Gravitation weapons, too...

[Mr Mystery]

Flamers ignore cover...so how did this even ever become an issue? If a Heavy Flamer hits the rear end of a AV10 vehicle, it damn well can glance or pen dat arse -- with no cover saves allowed.

Main issue there is whether we RAW, or RAI.

For my money, players should stick to one or the other during any given game. Helps to reduce bickering between the two, and thus cuts down bickering in general.

[Charon]

I can remeber one or two instances where we where like: "Ok this is RAW. Lets go for the RAI as this is really really stupid if taken as written."
A few months later ther is an FAQ which tells us that the most stupid, unfun and unnarrative interpretation is not only RAW but also RAI.

[Mr Mystery]

Can still be house ruled one way or the other, though I am loathe to do that in situations where only player benefits.

[Charon]

Sure it can. My point was more that the line between RAI and RAW can be rather blurred.

[Mr Mystery]

True enough.

Though take the IC/Infiltrate, and IC/Dedicated Transport.

Reading what is actually there in the rules, the answer is obvious (no on both counts, army special rules excepting). The yes is a matter of linking in other rules.

Ditto the Ordnance and Snap Shots. RAI, Tanks can move and fire Ordnance. But a tank firing Ordnance can only snap shot with the rest of it's weapons that turn. It's when you try to overlay the rules they can get a bit confusing.

[daboarder]

Actually mystery. I was wrong. They have added a section that removes the logic trap from IC in transports.

Rgilbert pointed it out. Its before the dedicated transport segment. I would re quote it but im on my phone

[Gir]

Page 166: An independent character without the infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment.

It's right there, in the rules. How is this a massive issue?

Also before the argument is made, infiltrate is NOT conferred to other models, it only requires one model to have it to be used by a whole unit.

[daboarder]

Page 166: An independent character without the infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment.

It's right there, in the rules. How is this a massive issue?

Also before the argument is made, infiltrate is NOT conferred to other models, it only requires one model to have it to be used by a whole unit.

DEAR GOD WOULD PEOPLE READ THE DAMNED ARGUMENT BEFORE THEY POST THIS FOR THE UMPTEENTH BLOODY TIME!!!!

We are discussing Independent Characters WITH Infiltrate, passing it to units WITHOUT Infiltrate.

[Lord Asterion]

DEAR GOD WOULD PEOPLE READ THE DAMNED ARGUMENT BEFORE THEY POST THIS FOR THE UMPTEENTH BLOODY TIME!!!!

We are discussing Independent Characters WITH Infiltrate, passing it to units WITHOUT Infiltrate.

Which they can't do. Thats done. No one has posted a single coherent or logical argument, using the rules, to suggest otherwise.

[Charistoph]

Which they can't do. Thats done. No one has posted a single coherent or logical argument, using the rules, to suggest otherwise.

Actually, incorrect. They CAN, it's just too late to do anything with it unless both are Reserved for Outflank.

[Lord Asterion]

Actually, incorrect. They CAN, it's just too late to do anything with it unless both are Reserved for Outflank.

Well yes, sorry, I just meant they can't in the context they're arguing for.

[RGilbert26]

Played a big game yesterday at my local GW (a fun narrative game) and I rolled for my Chaos Lord's Warlord traits. Guess what I got?

D3 Infantry units may be given Infiltrate - argh!

[Mr Mystery]

Actually, incorrect. They CAN, it's just too late to do anything with it unless both are Reserved for Outflank.

Bingo.

They're allowed to join any unit as per the rules.

There's just no way to actually attach them during deployment.

[Charistoph]

Bingo.

They're allowed to join any unit as per the rules.

There's just no way to actually attach them during deployment.

Sure there is. The IC Infiltrates in to the unit's position.

Or did you mean before Deployment?

[Mr Mystery]

Meaning before and indeed during.

Units with infiltrate go down last. So by the time Captain Sneaky McSneaky of the Emperor's Sneakers gets to deploy by Infiltrate, all other units without infiltrate are either on the board, or declared in Reserve.

Only way for a character to join a unit prior to actually being placed on the board is if they and the unit are in Reserves.

[Charistoph]

Meaning before and indeed during.

Units with infiltrate go down last. So by the time Captain Sneaky McSneaky of the Emperor's Sneakers gets to deploy by Infiltrate, all other units without infiltrate are either on the board, or declared in Reserve.

Only way for a character to join a unit prior to actually being placed on the board is if they and the unit are in Reserves.

Yeup.

So far. GW may make an IC that actually can do that. They always like breaking their own rules.