An interesting thing happened in one of my games over the weekend. My opponent playing Fatecrusher assaults one of my Battlewagons with a squad of Fiends, a squad of crushers, and some other junk. The Fiends first, so he rolls for the one with unholy might. Gets one six to hit, which rends to penetrate. He then scores a six to explode the vehicle. While I'm placing my models in the footprint I find I cannot finish deploying them in the space left over.

He said I would be destoied. I asked him to show me where it says that in the rulebook. When we looked under the damage table and transports we could find anything that said I was destroied. Then we checked for the I can't be within 1in, and found that only applied in the movement, and shooting phase. At that point e argued back and forth on what to do for a minute, before I said that regardless of the fact he had more objectives and more kill points (we were playing the first Ard Boyz senario) so he won. My question is wether or not there is a solution or rule for this? Or, is this just a unknown GW is famous for? A page number to what ever rule you bring up would be much appreciated.

Well, if it were wrecked, then the models that cannot disembark are destroyed.

However, in the case of explodes, it seems that there are no rules to deal with this situation. I guess the rules are written with the assumption that you will be able to fit all the models in the space provided. Remember that the rule says "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be", not "Placed in the EXACT AREA THE VEHICLE OCCUPIED SO HELP YOU IF YOU ARE MILLIMETRE OUT!", so there is some flexibility here.

IMO, you would just place them as best you can, staying more than 1" away.

I would treat it on a model-by-model basis, as the "Wrecked" result says to do.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:I would treat it on a model-by-model basis, as the "Wrecked" result says to do.

This is what I thought initially as well, but the wording on Exploding is totally separate and difference. The wording of "where the vehicle used to be" is also pretty loose.

Okay that sames like the best way to handle it.

The way my group remedies it is using the explosion radius to put the troops in. Makes sense since went everywhere.

Gwar! wrote:Well, if it were wrecked, then the models that cannot disembark are destroyed.

However, in the case of explodes, it seems that there are no rules to deal with this situation. I guess the rules are written with the assumption that you will be able to fit all the models in the space provided. Remember that the rule says "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be", not "Placed in the EXACT AREA THE VEHICLE OCCUPIED SO HELP YOU IF YOU ARE MILLIMETRE OUT!", so there is some flexibility here.

IMO, you would just place them as best you can, staying more than 1" away.

I have been discussing about this topic with my local group and while they say that you have to keep 1" and that every model that does not fit will be destroyed. My point is that you do not have to keep the inch because it does not say so in this point and this placement is not a movement (i agree that if it were they would have to keep the distance).
Do you have any argument about why do you have to keep the inch?
I would agree in removing everything that does not fit in the footprint to avoid bizarre situations, but then, keeping the inch seems like over restrictive to me.

the way we do it at the store i play at is we first check to see which if any models are killed by the explosion the place those that are left using the emergency disembark rules if necessary

agalavis wrote:
Do you have any argument about why do you have to keep the inch?
.

How about that the only time you're specifically mentioned as being able to move within an inch is when assaulting? Are you assaulting? No.

BRB, pg61 wrote:
Destroyed - Explodes
The vehicle is destroyed, as its fuel and ammo detonate, ripping it apart in a spectacular explosion. Flaming debris is scattered D6" from the vehicle, and models in range suffer a Strength 3, AP - hit. The vehicle is then removed and is replaced with an area of difficult ground representing scattered wreckage or a crater (if you have one).

and

BRB, pg67 wrote:
EFFECTS OF DAMAGE RESULTS ON PASSENGERS
Destroyed - wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

Destroyed - explodes!
The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP - hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting. The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test.

OK, now that I've gotten that outta the way for reference purposes.......

Our gaming group plays it this way: You remove the vehicle and place a crater (or if we are outta craters, we have pieces of felt cut to represent the size of most transports) and then you resolve the Strength 4 hits against the passengers, the ones still alive are placed on the felt or in the crater and then we pile the assaulting models back in around them. Yes it sometimes requires the assaulting models to move back a half an inch or so, but the rules don't say anything about having to lose models that don't fit in the exact template of your vehicle. And If you have alot of old 2nd edition vehicles (ie. smaller size) like most of our group does there is no way a full squad will fit in the template of the vehicle. plus we reckon that if a damn vehicle explodes in your face you are gonna move back just a smidge or two from the explosion and concussive force of said explosion. Plus the rules specificly state under the "Destroyed - Wrecked" result that any models that cannot disembark are destroyed, but they say absolutely NOTHING about any models being destroyed or removed (except as casualties to the STR 4 hits) under the "Destroyed - explodes!" result.

And yes we have had some heated debates because as someone put it rather bluntly, it is better for your vehicle to explode than it is to have it become wrecked since according to the rules you don't lose anyone from the assaulting forces surrounding the vehicle 2 inches deep. And yes we had a SM player with a rhino get surrounded by a huge ork mob almost 3 inches deep and wrecked the rhino. The squad inside was destroyed because they could not disembark or emergency disembark because of the surrounding ork models. he then said, "So if they had blown it up instead of wrecking it I would be OK in the crater, right?" To which we all smiled/laughed and said...."yep".

YMMV, but that is how we play it.

~Bart

don_mondo wrote:How about that the only time you're specifically mentioned as being able to move within an inch is when assaulting? Are you assaulting? No.

This.

Kharnflakes wrote:the way we do it at the store i play at is we first check to see which if any models are killed by the explosion the place those that are left using the emergency disembark rules if necessary

I would respectfully disagree with this. You use emergency disembarking rules if the vehicle is wrecked and you cant disembark from the access points. In the example above, you are not disembarking, you are standing in a crater that used to be your transport.

~Bart



Automatically Appended Next Post:

agalavis wrote:Do you have any argument about why do you have to keep the inch?

How about not in this example because the BRb doesn't say you have to place your models so that you keep an inch minimum between them and the assaulters that just blew up your ride. It specificly states the surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test. Do you (or your friends) see anywhere in that paragraph that says anything about placing them where the vehicle used to be, keeping a 1 inch distance from any enemy models? Of course not, because if you did that, you'd be able to place what...between 1 to 3 models, maybe a couple more depending on the size of the transport (GW vs scratchbuilt, etc.)? I mean, come on, set down a rhino, or chimera, or whatever, surround it by a group of models, then pick it up, measure 1 inch in and then mark it and try to fit more than a couple of models inside the ring. You can't. If they dont get this visual then its hopeless and tell them to just go back to buggering the livestock.

~Bart

If you are using older edition vehicles with a smaller footprint you pay for any advantages you gain if the vehicle is surrounded and wrecked/explodes. The most relevant rule says you may only move within 1" during assault. The models that destroyed the vehicle don't have to move after the wrecked/explodes result, therefore, only those embarked passengers that can set up an inch away from the enemy survive. The remaining survivors die as they try to exit the wreck and are hacked apart and shot by the attackers.

This is the price you pay in fifth edition. In fourth all you had to do was block access points and an embarked squad was dead, so fifth is actually a little more forgiving. Most savvy players can also place their transports or disembark if necessary to limit squad death this way.

Krak_kirby wrote:If you are using older edition vehicles with a smaller footprint you pay for any advantages you gain if the vehicle is surrounded and wrecked/explodes. The most relevant rule says you may only move within 1" during assault. The models that destroyed the vehicle don't have to move after the wrecked/explodes result, therefore, only those embarked passengers that can set up an inch away from the enemy survive. The remaining survivors die as they try to exit the wreck and are hacked apart and shot by the attackers.

This is the price you pay in fifth edition. In fourth all you had to do was block access points and an embarked squad was dead, so fifth is actually a little more forgiving. Most savvy players can also place their transports or disembark if necessary to limit squad death this way.

The most relevant rule is the one telling you what to do for the destroyed - explodes! result. Which is to put the surving models where the vehicle used to be. Now granted, we give the player a bit of a break (because we are all friends and this is supposed to be a fun game) and if he has 10 surviving models and only 8 fit in the exact footprint we move the assaulters back just a hair to get them all in, but even if we didnt and only let the player place as many as would fit, the rules do not state you have to maintain a 1 inch minimum in this case.

Barthonis wrote: the rules do not state you have to maintain a 1 inch minimum in this case.

Indeed they do, as the models are not assaulting.

You're welcome to give me a bit of a break if you like, and down at the game store I'm liable to do the same, but if we face each other over a tournament table I'll argue for the one inch rule.

The one inch rule is intended to show who is in assault and who is not, and "a model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting" is observed even with models that are "placed" on the table, like the Callidus assassin or Sly Marbo. The one inch rule is ironclad, in my opinion, and would require specific wording in another entry to contradict it, i.e., "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and may be placed within 1" of enemy models, then take a pinning test."

Nowhere do the rules state the assaulting unit "makes way" for placing surviving passengers, and that runs counter to what the game is about anyway. You and I may be best pals, but my ork speed freeks are certainly not going to take a tea break after blowing up your rhino so your tactical squad can sort itself out.

kirsanth wrote:

Barthonis wrote: the rules do not state you have to maintain a 1 inch minimum in this case.

Indeed they do, as the models are not assaulting.

Are they moving? Is there a general rule that says you cannot be 'placed' within 1" of an enemy model?

Maybe I'm missing the argument against, do you have page numbers that show that 'being placed' is movement in this case or that you cannot be 'placed' within 1" of an enemy model?

it does seem harsh that an ork trukk can only fit two orks in the back anyway. I agree the assaulting unit shouldn't have to move but I am worried that the 1" rule will lead to victory through modelling e.g. my trukk is 5 inches wide and 7" long etc.

Whilst the Disembarking rules never say it explicitly, the inference is certainly that disembarking is movement... As evidence, the first bullet point on page 67 points out that models disembarking from a transport that has moved may not "move any further"... rather than just "may not move."

The prohibition on moving further only makes any sense if you assume that they moved in the first place... and since the only action they have performed immediately preceding is to disembark, it follows that disembarking should be considered to be movement that doesn't affect their regular movement if they are entitled to take it (if the transport hadn't already moved, for instance).

insaniak wrote:Whilst the Disembarking rules never say it explicitly, the inference is certainly that disembarking is movement... As evidence, the first bullet point on page 67 points out that models disembarking from a transport that has moved may not "move any further"... rather than just "may not move."

The prohibition on moving further only makes any sense if you assume that they moved in the first place... and since the only action they have performed immediately preceding is to disembark, it follows that disembarking should be considered to be movement that doesn't affect their regular movement if they are entitled to take it (if the transport hadn't already moved, for instance).

But the explodes result doesn't use disembarking at all, unless there's more to the quoted section above.

BRB, pg67 wrote:
EFFECTS OF DAMAGE RESULTS ON PASSENGERS
Destroyed - wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

Destroyed - explodes!
The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP - hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting. The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test.

Gorkamorka wrote:But the explodes result doesn't use disembarking at all, unless there's more to the quoted section above.

Indeed it doesn't. Think I veered off track somewhere along the course of this thread. So don't bother reading my last post... it doesn't apply to the discussion at hand.

because of the fail wording of the explode results passage it can be ruled either way RAW. RAI treat as a disembark most likely

BlueDagger wrote:because of the fail wording of the explode results passage it can be ruled either way RAW. RAI treat as a disembark most likely

How can it be ruled either way RAW, exactly? I'm legitimately curious why several people are arguing that explodes uses disembarking.

RAW the rule doesn't say disembark, and it doesn't invoke or reference the disembarking or movement rules. And it notably does so in the same table as a similar result that does specifically use and mention the disembarking rules.

How can you say that RAI favors using the rule using disembarkation rules when the rule does not mention them and is right next to a rule that specifically does?
Saying that the writer was an idiot and used 'fail wording' isn't a logical argument for RAW or RAI, it's a deflecting excuse.

NOTE: My entire post is under the assumption that you can't place models within 1" of an enemy. If the rules specifically state move, then I will gladly retract this post and go eat some crow

As much as I hate to say it, I agree that you (obviously) don't disembark in an explosion.

However, I think in the spirit/intent of the rules, you shouldn't be able to place a model within 1" of an enemy. The only time (that I know of) that you are allowed to do that, the rules specifically allow for models to be placed that way.

I look at it the same way as deployment. There are no rules for deployment, but I don't place my beasts on the top level of ruins, nor do I deploy in impassable terrain.

Like I said, I do agree that the rule does not disallow placement within 1" of an enemy, but it doesn't allow it either.

zatchmo wrote:NOTE: My entire post is under the assumption that you can't place models within 1" of an enemy. If the rules specifically state move, then I will gladly retract this post and go eat some crow

Find me this rule. I will gladly accept it, if it is there. I just don't see it, and am getting annoyed at people in the thread stating it repeatedly without providing a reference.

The movement phase rules on page 11, talking about 'models in the way' while moving, state that 'A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting'.

This has nothing to do with placing units after an explodes result, that I can see.

The major issue is that the explosion rules are poorly worded and do not state what type of movement/placement the placing of the models are. The rules for staying 1" from any enemy models are stated in ever place that "placing/moving a model" can occur such as Deepstrike, movement, disembarking, etc, but the explosion result is simply place them in the area the vehicle use to be but doesn't take into account if that is not enough room for the models to be within 1".

have to change my mind on this one and per RAW just slap them down where the vehicle was. RAI though prob treat it as disembarking as my major issue with vehicle exploded is it has the potential to be more benefitial to the player then a wrecked result.

@gorka

I don't actually have my book on me as I am at work, but the only place that I can even remotely point to is the deepstrike rules.

Bear with me.

It (I think) says that after you place your models after a deepstrike, if they are within 1" of an enemy, then they mishap. I will gladly admit that this is in reference to a deepstrike, but it does place (somewhat) of a precedent that move and place could be synonymous.

I know that this is very shaky, and I do agree that the rule does appear to say that you can place your models within 1" of enemies after an explosion, but that seems...incorrect, is the only word I can think of. It just seems to go against how other rules are written. But, noone ever said GW was good about consistency!

zatchmo wrote:But, noone ever said GW was good about consistency!

QFT!!!!!

Thanks gorka for defending my point while i was away
Now, while everybody defends the so called "rule of the inch", that rule is in fact does not exist, at least not in a universal sense. Everytime that it is needed to keep distance from an enemy model, the inch is noted. So that says that en every other situation that is not noted, you can place your models wherever is allowed, in this case you are instructed to use the footprint of the vehicle.
If the placement after the explosion counted as "moving" or "disembarking", the i agree that you have to keep an inch.
For the same reason that i say that you do not have to keep that inch, i also say that heavy weapons can fire after an explosion (in not pinned) but not after a wreckage. That is RAW.
If this is about intention, then i guess that the intention was that anyone that could not leave the wreckage is because is trapped inside (note they did not suffered damage), so the are no longer important to the game, while those that survived the explosión (note they DID suffered damage) are scattered all around the place.
When disembarking you moved by yourself and you were aware of your ending location (you keep the distance). During the explosion you where expelled anywhere and maybe the enemy was the wall that stopped your fly (maybe some wounds to the enemy correspond to having a marine in full armor hurled at you by the explosion).
So as I see it, I have the RAW in my side and also have a fluff history that could explain my interpretation for RAI.
For those that say that a 5 is worse than a 6 in the damage table, remember that many people plays with the vehicle "corpse" to block LOS as a tactic. That does not work with explosions, so he 5 is better there. And also, imagine having your mob of 20 boyz decimated my having to save at 6+ and then tell me that you would not rather have them disembarking... i think an explosion as written is far more devastating and that is the point.

Regardless of precedents in other rules you can't just add the 1" rule to a vehicle explosion result. It doesn't state it anywhere within the rule. What you are doing is breaking the “Rule As Written” by disallowing models from being placed within the foot print of the vehicle.

The fact that it states the 1" in the deepstrike mishap rule is as strong if not stronger argument for being able to place them within 1" than it is not being able to.

I agree that it’s fuzzy, but only because there should be a description on how it effects the models surrounding the vehicle. Not those inside.

1. Getting out of a vehicle is disembarking, regardless of how you get out of the vehicle.

2. p.67: If a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers...

3. The rulebook just told us that when destroyed or wrecked, the passengers disembark.

4. When disembarking, there several rules dictating where to play your models, and where they may or may not be placed in relation to other models.

In the case of a vehicle exploding, the models being placed into the now-defunct vehicle's footprint aren't referred to as "now afoot" or "on the ground" they're referred to as "now disembarked." IE, vehicle explodes, passengers disembark into the vehicle footprint, following disembarking rules.

If you surround a vehicle, assault it and cause it to be exploded...the placement of the models changes due to the action of the vehicle exploding, but it still tells you that they are disembarking, and disembarking has its own rules to follow.

The movement phase rules on page 11, talking about 'models in the way' while moving, state that 'A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting'.

This has nothing to do with placing units after an explodes result, that I can see.

So what happens in the next turn? The disembarked squad is now in a paradox during the movement phase as it is within 1" of the enemy...

FlingitNow wrote:

The movement phase rules on page 11, talking about 'models in the way' while moving, state that 'A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting'.

This has nothing to do with placing units after an explodes result, that I can see.

So what happens in the next turn? The disembarked squad is now in a paradox during the movement phase as it is within 1" of the enemy...

How, exactly, is this a paradox? The models simply can't move or run.

There are other rules situations where models can be within 1" of eachother and not locked in assault.
If you assault a tank and don't blow it up, can it move next turn aside from tank shocking? Can you move next turn aside from assaulting? You're within 1" of enemy models. Oh noes, paradox.

I think Dashofpepper hit the nail on the head. Thanks Dash, I know exactly what to reference if this comes up at a tourney.

Krak_kirby wrote:I think Dashofpepper hit the nail on the head. Thanks Dash, I know exactly what to reference if this comes up at a tourney.

If you brought it up at a tourney I would have an equal amount of evidence stating otherwise, except my arguments wouldnt be based on assumptions.

{quote]If you brought it up at a tourney I would have an equal amount of evidence stating otherwise, except my arguments wouldnt be based on assumptions.

Gorkamorka wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Barthonis wrote: the rules do not state you have to maintain a 1 inch minimum in this case.

Indeed they do, as the models are not assaulting.

Are they moving? Is there a general rule that says you cannot be 'placed' within 1" of an enemy model?

Maybe I'm missing the argument against, do you have page numbers that show that 'being placed' is movement in this case or that you cannot be 'placed' within 1" of an enemy model?

Don't need one. YOU need to prove that you are allowed to place them within an inch. There is only ONE general exception to that in the rulebook that I can think of, the assault move. Without something specifically granting you the ability to move (ie place) the model within an inch, you cannot do it.

I think the poorly written rules are going to require some wrangling no matter how you dissect them.

@Dashofpepper: The rules don't say passengers disembark when the vehicle explodes... it assumes they ARE disembarked. Important distinction. Disembarking is the action... disembarked is the state. They are distinct. If the vehicle explodes around me I'm disembarked immediately.

How I Would Play It: The models are placed within the footprint of the exploded vehicle, just like it says. In a way the rules for assaulting a squad that has been disembarked from a destroyed transport support the deploying of passengers within the footprint as the two are treated interchangeably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote: YOU need to prove that you are allowed to place them within an inch. There is only ONE general exception to that in the rulebook that I can think of, the assault move. Without something specifically granting you the ability to move (ie place) the model within an inch, you cannot do it.

The rule allowing you to place them within one inch is the rule that tells you to place the passengers where the exploded vehicle was. If the vehicle was within one inch of another model and you place the passengers where the vehicle was then they are within one inch...

Sorry dash of pepper has it how can you dispute what he's said? No assumptions using both the letter of the law and (more importantly) the meaning and reasoning behind the law

Have you even read these topics? Seriously. No where does it state within the rule being disputed that a unit has disembarked [EDIT: The nice post above made a good point and helped clarify this point: no where does it say that the action of disembarking took place]. Trying to piece it together with other rules is assuming.

The rule allowing you to place them within one inch is the rule that tells you to place the passengers where the exploded vehicle was. If the vehicle was within one inch of another model and you place the passengers where the vehicle was then they are within one inch...

So hwo do you get the modells there without moving them? Do you have some sort of teleporter? An assault isn't a move (as defined in the movement phase), but it still follows all the same restrictions as the movement phase (except where there is express permission to break them) because... You are moving the models. Placing the models is still picking up and moving the models and unless somethig specifically overrides a particular rule all normal rules for moving a model count.

Or are you assuming you can place models on top of each other in this situation because it doesn;t specifically state you can't in that paragraph? You assume all normal rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

FlingitNow wrote:

The rule allowing you to place them within one inch is the rule that tells you to place the passengers where the exploded vehicle was. If the vehicle was within one inch of another model and you place the passengers where the vehicle was then they are within one inch...

So hwo do you get the modells there without moving them? Do you have some sort of teleporter? An assault isn't a move (as defined in the movement phase), but it still follows all the same restrictions as the movement phase (except where there is express permission to break them) because... You are moving the models. Placing the models is still picking up and moving the models and unless somethig specifically overrides a particular rule all normal rules for moving a model count.

Finally, someone making this argument. I love this argument, the one where someone claims that because they are physically moving models with their hands that it must count as movement despite having no rules backing. It always cracks me up.
PS: Assaulting uses the movement rules because it specifically says that it does, with a few detailed exceptions, not for the reasons you claim.

FlingitNow wrote:
Or are you assuming you can place models on top of each other in this situation because it doesn;t specifically state you can't in that paragraph? You assume all normal rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

The rules cover this quite clearly, if you read them. Models count as impassable terrain, and models 'may not be placed in impassable terrain'.

Models count as impassable terrain, and models 'may not be placed in impassable terrain'.

Do you have a page reference for that?

Still as DashofPepper illustrated it does say that models that are not longer in an exploded vehicle are disembarked.

It also doesn't specific say you can't declare yourself the winner at this point, or that you can't just remove all of his models. It say you can place your models in the footprint it doesn't specifically say what to do with miodels that don't fit in the footprint of the vehicle, even ignoring the 1" rule that might not be possible, but it syas you can place them in the footprint so you can place them on top of each other? What do you do by your theory you are at an impass, by your description the models cannot be destroyed as no provision is given for that unless you enforce the 1" rule...

FlingitNow wrote:

Models count as impassable terrain, and models 'may not be placed in impassable terrain'.

Do you have a page reference for that?

BRB page 14, bottom right under Impassable Terrain; "Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless..."

And as TW has mentioned elsewhre:
BRB page 66, first paragraph under 'Embarking and Disembarking' last sentence says; "However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

So ANY "Destroyed" results in a disembark, with the two different destroyed being done differently. And now we're back to cannot disembark within an inch........................

Time wizard



Thank you.

So there we have if we accept Gorkamorka view and you can't fit all the models in the footprint of the transport you can't place them on top of each other and there is no rule governing them being destroyed (as they all relate to disembarking which you claim the squad hasn't done) so the game just stops and we all go home?

FlingitNow wrote:Time wizard



Thank you.

So there we have if we accept Gorkamorka view and you can't fit all the models in the footprint of the transport you can't place them on top of each other and there is no rule governing them being destroyed (as they all relate to disembarking which you claim the squad hasn't done) so the game just stops and we all go home?

There are plenty of rules situations where the game hangs with no RAW resolution. That doesn't mean you can throw out the RAW in a RAW argument.

don_mondo wrote:
'Embarking and Disembarking' last sentence says; "However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."'

How does this apply? 'may embark and then be forced to disembark if there transport is destroyed' doesn't show that that the explosion rules use disembarking or force them to. It just states that being forced to disembark by a destroyed result is a valid action.
Wrecked is a valid destroyed result and can cause this rule to come into effect, so you can't even argue that the RAI is clear.

don_mondo wrote:
So ANY "Destroyed" results in a disembark

You're making inferences, like Dash's claim, that the rules don't specifically support.

BRB, pg67 wrote:
Destroyed - explodes!
The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP - hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting. The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test.

yeah,
BRB says put them where the vehicle was, this implys permission to place them any where within the boundaries of the exploded transport including within 1" of a enemy.

Panic...

Gorkamorka wrote:You're making inferences, like Dash's claim, that the rules don't specifically support.

Panic wrote: this implys permission to place them any where within the boundaries of the exploded transport including within 1" of a enemy.

Indeed. Implications abound.

The rule states to place them where the vehicle was destroyed. There is no implication there. It does not state that they must remain 1 inch away, but people are trying to prove otherwise.

kirsanth wrote:
Indeed. Implications abound.

There's no need to be pedantic just because you have no solid RAW supporting your argument.
Besides, my 'implication' was specifically allowed by the rule.

I am pedantic, regardless -- it has no bearing on this discussion.
Or rather, this discussion has no bearing on that part of my nature.


Editing to add:
I still have a hard time understand how it is not movement, but as I said I need to read more and do not have time for it at the moment.

don_mondo wrote:Don't need one. YOU need to prove that you are allowed to place them within an inch. There is only ONE general exception to that in the rulebook that I can think of, the assault move. Without something specifically granting you the ability to move (ie place) the model within an inch, you cannot do it.

Actually, there's more than one. Tank shock and Ramming also allows movement to inside an inch (BGB pg 68-69), and ramming even allows the model to stay within an inch should the ramming action not destroy the target vehicle. Moreover, the rule allows movement within an inch of models capable of assault (Walkers) that might result in the ramming model remaining within that inch but without initiating a close combat. Even better, the rules allow movement inside an inch without specifically and categorically listing it as an exception to what you're trying to suggest is an ironclad rule.

It's not proof either way for the question at hand, but this does take some of the wind out of the "there are no exceptions to the one inch rule" argument.

Fenris-77 wrote: Actually, there's more than one. Tank shock and Ramming also allows movement to inside an inch (BGB pg 68-69), and ramming even allows the model to stay within an inch should the ramming action not destroy the target vehicle. Moreover, the rule allows movement within an inch of models capable of assault (Walkers) that might result in the ramming model remaining within that inch but without initiating a close combat. Even better, the rules allow movement inside an inch without specifically and categorically listing it as an exception to what you're trying to suggest is an ironclad rule.

It's not proof either way for the question at hand, but this does take some of the wind out of the "there are no exceptions to the one inch rule" argument.

The tank shock rule allows the tank to make a special kind of attack. Think of it as an assault move by the tank, and assaulting models are allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model. But if the models the tank 'assaults' would end up under the tank, they are moved out of the way but must still leave 1" between themselves and the vehicle. The !' distance must still be maintained.

As for ramming, if the rammed vehicle is not removed, the ramming vehicle halts. And again ramming is a special kind of tank shock so it is a special type of assault a vehicle can make against another vehicle. This assault move is, again, an exception to the 1" rule because it is an attack that just happens to take place in the Movement phase.

If I missed the parts of the rule you were referring to, please point them out to me.

There are plenty of rules situations where the game hangs with no RAW resolution. That doesn't mean you can throw out the RAW in a RAW argument.

It is not a case of throwing out the RAW, you saying that because it says place them in the footprint of the tank and doesn;t mention the 1" rule (nor does it mention any other rule on model movement or placement) that we can throw out this rule and in doing so get to a point with no resolution. Where as taking the general rule that a specific rule overrides a non-specific rule we get the situation resolved and it all works in a sensible and normal manner and is consistant with the rest of the rules...

FlingitNow wrote:

The rule allowing you to place them within one inch is the rule that tells you to place the passengers where the exploded vehicle was. If the vehicle was within one inch of another model and you place the passengers where the vehicle was then they are within one inch...

So hwo do you get the modells there without moving them? Do you have some sort of teleporter? ...

Yes, in effect. The models were not on the board. They aren't moved onto the board. They magically appear on the board in the position of the transport they were riding in.

It isn't movement. It isn't assault. It isn't deepstriking. It's the same 'move' models get when you put them on the board during pre-game deployment.

FlingitNow wrote:

There are plenty of rules situations where the game hangs with no RAW resolution. That doesn't mean you can throw out the RAW in a RAW argument.

It is not a case of throwing out the RAW, you saying that because it says place them in the footprint of the tank and doesn;t mention the 1" rule (nor does it mention any other rule on model movement or placement) that we can throw out this rule and in doing so get to a point with no resolution. Where as taking the general rule that a specific rule overrides a non-specific rule we get the situation resolved and it all works in a sensible and normal manner and is consistant with the rest of the rules...

Noone is throwing out any rules. You are invoking rules that the rule does not invoke and claiming they have to be applied.
There is no general rule on placement being movement. Or at least the dozen people in both threads have failed to provide one, as have you.

Exactly.

So they are allowed to be placed in base with enemies? Assuming enemy models were in base contact with the vehicle, that is.

Interesting. I need time to read!

Noone is throwing out any rules. You are invoking rules that the rule does not invoke and claiming they have to be applied.
There is no general rule on placement being movement. Or at least the dozen people in both threads have failed to provide one, as have you.

However people have shown numerous examples in the rules where it refers to models disembarking from a Vehicle destroyed (not wrecked) result or models being disembarked after a vehicle explodes result...

Disembarking is covered, your definition however reaches no resolution.

FlingitNow wrote:

Noone is throwing out any rules. You are invoking rules that the rule does not invoke and claiming they have to be applied.
There is no general rule on placement being movement. Or at least the dozen people in both threads have failed to provide one, as have you.

However people have shown numerous examples in the rules where it refers to models disembarking from a Vehicle destroyed (not wrecked) result or models being disembarked after a vehicle explodes result...

Disembarking is covered, your definition however reaches no resolution.

As has been stated, none of those examples say that explodes uses dismbarking or force models from explodes to use disembarking, they just provide resolution for destroyed results that involve disembarking.

The fact that RAW can cause a rules hang is not an argument against the rules presented by the RAW. It is an argument for RAI or for using modified house rules.

FlingitNow wrote:

Noone is throwing out any rules. You are invoking rules that the rule does not invoke and claiming they have to be applied.
There is no general rule on placement being movement. Or at least the dozen people in both threads have failed to provide one, as have you.

However people have shown numerous examples in the rules where it refers to models disembarking from a Vehicle destroyed (not wrecked) result or models being disembarked after a vehicle explodes result...

Disembarking is covered, your definition however reaches no resolution.

but as stated several times upon an explosion result there is nothing stating that what occurs there after is a disembark. Lets face it though, the only vehicle I can think of that would have the issue of not all the models fitting in it's footprint would be an ork battlewagon. There is absolutely nothing stating that you can not "place" models within 1" of an enemy model after the destroyed result, so what occurs if you can't fit them in the footprint would be a very slim situation.

BlueDagger wrote:
but as stated several times upon an explosion result there is nothing stating that what occurs there after is a disembark. Lets face it though, the only vehicle I can think of that would have the issue of not all the models fitting in it's footprint would be an ork battlewagon. There is absolutely nothing stating that you can not "place" models within 1" of an enemy model after the destroyed result, so what occurs if you can't fit them in the footprint would be a very slim situation.

It is a situation that can exist though, which I'm not arguing.
The fact that it is possible to have alive but unplaceable models doesn't somehow mean the RAW of explodes is invalidated, however.
It just means that the rule doesn't cover all its bases, as occurs elsewhere in the book.

FlingitNow wrote:Time wizard



Thank you.

So there we have if we accept Gorkamorka view and you can't fit all the models in the footprint of the transport you can't place them on top of each other and there is no rule governing them being destroyed (as they all relate to disembarking which you claim the squad hasn't done) so the game just stops and we all go home?

Well in that case you have three options: be a good sport and compromise, roll for it or go home. Anyway, in friendly games you should be flexible and reach a middle point (maybe i do not respect the inch and destroy all models that do not fit) or roll, in tourneys you could also ask the TO and accept the call.

I must say that two things said have made me think that maybe the models do disembark after an explosion (the note from dashofpeeper about the model being treated as disembarked and that destroying a vehicle forces you to disembark). I'm still thinking about it because i'm stubborn and because i still do not buy the wording. I'm hesitating and might get to accept this is disembark (and then accept the 1" limit).
In any case, the disembarking rules have nothing to do with destroying models. Those rules only say that in case you can´t disembark the whole unit you may attempt an emergency disembark. If you still can´t do that you do not disembark, nowhere is stated that the models are removed from play but in the case of the wreckage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote:And as TW has mentioned elsewhre:
BRB page 66, first paragraph under 'Embarking and Disembarking' last sentence says; "However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

So ANY "Destroyed" results in a disembark, with the two different destroyed being done differently. And now we're back to cannot disembark within an inch........................

Ok, let's say you disembark, you count as moving for shooting, but about the placement: would you allow me to move as described in the disembarking rules? do i get to put my models within 2" of the now defunct vehicle and not closer to 1" of an enemy? of course not because the rule for explosions state where can i put my models, effectively modifying the area of the disembarking rule. The new area is the footprint, no mention of keeping the inch restriction. You do not get to pick which parts of the original rule apply and which doesn't. All placement related stuff falls under the exception.

Well in that case you have three options: be a good sport and compromise, roll for it or go home. Anyway, in friendly games you should be flexible and reach a middle point (maybe i do not respect the inch and destroy all models that do not fit) or roll, in tourneys you could also ask the TO and accept the call.

You've switch from RaW to an actual game. If you are playing an actual game then you will have to use the rules of the game as written by games workshop in which case it is disembarking and any not placeable using the 1" are destroyed.

Whilst Gorkamorka can argue symantecs with the wording in an actual game the rules are pretty clear and the smallest amount of common sense is required to apply them. So in an entirely hypothetical Raw discussion Gorkamorka has a tenuous if not unconvincing argument, but in an actual game the rules are quite obvious.

I have never played it that way (with 1" restriction), nor have I seen anyone else play it that way. So don't state your opinions (which has very little evidence) as facts.

Ok, let's say you disembark, you count as moving for shooting, but about the placement: would you allow me to move as described in the disembarking rules? do i get to put my models within 2" of the now defunct vehicle and not closer to 1" of an enemy? of course not because the rule for explosions state where can i put my models, effectively modifying the area of the disembarking rule. The new area is the footprint, no mention of keeping the inch restriction. You do not get to pick which parts of the original rule apply and which doesn't. All placement related stuff falls under the exception.

You can argue it is not disembarking, but once you accept that it is the game is up. Disembarking is movement. This overrides the normal restriction on disembarking as you place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than 2" of the exits, it does not state it overrides any other laws of movement. One of the laws of movement is to not be within 1" of an enemy model...

kirsanth wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:You're making inferences, like Dash's claim, that the rules don't specifically support.

Panic wrote: this implys permission to place them any where within the boundaries of the exploded transport including within 1" of a enemy.

Indeed. Implications abound.

And O.T:
Inferences are not the same as implications. Inferences comes from reason, you deduct something from some other things. The deductions could be wrong. On the other hand, implications relate to causes and effects, there is no reasoning in them as they are consequences of something. In analyzing RAW, implications are way stronger than inferences.

I have never played it that way (with 1" restriction), nor have I seen anyone else play it that way. So don't state your opinions (which has very little evidence) as facts

It is still the rules, they are quite clear on this. I'm pretty certain even Gorkamorka would accept the rules as you'd play them are obviously the 1" restriction. Read through these posts and look at the mean and reasoning behind the rules as you would with in a legal case (rather than worry about the exact wording), use the smallest amount of common sense.

For instance the rules don't specifiy how far you have to throw a dice. If I had a dice with the 6 pointing upward in my fingers and dropped it 1mm onto the table that would technically qualify as throwing a d6, and there is no rule expressly forbidding it, because common sense should tell you that is dumb.

The rules are written by people expecting others to use common sense when applying them rather than them having to reiterate every rule over and over saying it still applies in this situation... The rulebook would be 10 times as thick and impossible to read.

FlingitNow wrote:

You can argue it is not disembarking, but once you accept that it is the game is up. Disembarking is movement. This overrides the normal restriction on disembarking as you place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than 2" of the exits, it does not state it overrides any other laws of movement. One of the laws of movement is to not be within 1" of an enemy model...

I asked you before and Im going to ask you again...have you read the topic? Or are you purposely ignoring the points that have already addressed the issues you keep bringing up.

Your first sentence is essentially "You can keep arguing against me, but once you agree with me, the game is up". Great insight...

kirsanth wrote:I am pedantic, regardless -- it has no bearing on this discussion.
Or rather, this discussion has no bearing on that part of my nature.


Editing to add:
I still have a hard time understand how it is not movement, but as I said I need to read more and do not have time for it at the moment.

It's only movement if it says that it counts as movement (or if it is the action described in the movement section of the rulebook). See the bullets in p.67 where says that units that disembark count as moving for shooting. That is an example of how it must be written in order to be (in this case, count as) movement.

FlingitNow wrote:

It is still the rules, they are quite clear on this. I'm pretty certain even Gorkamorka would accept the rules as you'd play them are obviously the 1" restriction. Read through these posts and look at the mean and reasoning behind the rules as you would with in a legal case (rather than worry about the exact wording), use the smallest amount of common sense.

For instance the rules don't specifiy how far you have to throw a dice. If I had a dice with the 6 pointing upward in my fingers and dropped it 1mm onto the table that would technically qualify as throwing a d6, and there is no rule expressly forbidding it, because common sense should tell you that is dumb.

The rules are written by people expecting others to use common sense when applying them rather than them having to reiterate every rule over and over saying it still applies in this situation... The rulebook would be 10 times as thick and impossible to read.

-It is not the rules, it is not clear or else there wouldnt be a 4 page topic would there?
-You are assuming Gork would accept this, just like youre assuming it is disembarking when in both cases you have no evidence.
-Please do not try to argue common sense with me. I will take common sense over RAW anyday, but it has no presence here. Common sense would tell me that the unit could use all available space and that there wasnt a magical barrier preventing me from being within it. Coincidentally enough, thats exactly how the rules tell you to do it.

I asked you before and Im going to ask you again...have you read the topic? Or are you purposely ignoring the points that have already addressed the issues you keep bringing up.

Your first sentence is essentially "You can keep arguing against me, but once you agree with me, the game is up". Great insight...

Did you read the post I replied to? Yes I've read the topic have you?

The post I replied to said he accepted that the models were disembarking, but that he was not convinced the 1" restriction would then apply.

I'm pretty certain even you would agree if the models are disembarking the 1" restriction applies? I know you disagree that they are disembarking, but if it did state categorically in the rules that they were disembarking you'd accept the 1" rule right?

time wizard wrote:

As for ramming, if the rammed vehicle is not removed, the ramming vehicle halts. And again ramming is a special kind of tank shock so it is a special type of assault a vehicle can make against another vehicle. This assault move is, again, an exception to the 1" rule because it is an attack that just happens to take place in the Movement phase.

If I missed the parts of the rule you were referring to, please point them out to me.

WOW! big words here! please let's void the "ram is a form of tank shock" argument out of this if we want to keep the discusion on topic. Or else will have someone saying that Time Wizard says that deff rollas work on vehicles! opps! sorry

FlingitNow wrote:
It is still the rules, they are quite clear on this. I'm pretty certain even Gorkamorka would accept the rules as you'd play them are obviously the 1" restriction. Read through these posts and look at the mean and reasoning behind the rules as you would with in a legal case (rather than worry about the exact wording), use the smallest amount of common sense.
The rules are written by people expecting others to use common sense when applying them rather than them having to reiterate every rule over and over saying it still applies in this situation... The rulebook would be 10 times as thick and impossible to read.

You can argue it is not disembarking, but once you accept that it is the game is up. Disembarking is movement. This overrides the normal restriction on disembarking as you place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than 2" of the exits, it does not state it overrides any other laws of movement. One of the laws of movement is to not be within 1" of an enemy model...

Please, don't put words in my mouth. And please, don't argue rules completely incorrectly.
Without any solid RAW arguments, which you have not provided, you cannot claim that the RAW is on your side.
Explodes does not use disembarking. Period. That's it. You CANNOT say that RAW it uses the disembarking rules, or that it was obviously intended to use disembarking, or if only it used disembarking it would work the way you want it to, or that a non-specific implication from another rule somehow explicitly changes the rule to use disembarking.
Do not argue common sense, or what the implications of the RAW would be, or how you would play it as though that was RAW.

Stop repeating arguments with no basis, and that myself and others have poked gigantic holes in, as though it will somehow make them right. You are wrong, unless you have actual written proof from the rulebook that states specifically that you are right in this case, which you stoically refuse to provide.

Me and other posters have outlined the RAW and what it says. Without general or specific rules which ovveride or add to the language in the explodes result, which noone has provided, that is how the RAW works. I'm done with this thread, and this argument, as people on the other side are simply continually restating opinions or assumptions as though they are rules and refuse to provide the specific rule references that would be needed to change what the RAW instruction in explodes says to do and add a 1" restriction.

You can place the embarked models within 1" of enemy models. That's what the rule allows.
Enjoy playing by house rules, I suppose.

-It is not the rules, it is not clear or else there wouldnt be a 4 page topic would there?
-You are assuming Gork would accept this, just like youre assuming it is disembarking when in both cases you have no evidence.
-Please do not try to argue common sense with me. I will take common sense over RAW anyday, but it has no presence here. Common sense would tell me that the unit could use all available space and that there wasnt a magical barrier preventing me from being within it. Coincidentally enough, thats exactly how the rules tell you to do it.

It is the rules just some people don't want it to be the rules so are clutching at symantec straws...

I'm happy for Gorkamorka to say either way I'm sure he'll be back on here soon and we can ask him.

It refers to models being forced to disembark from vehicle destroyed results (not just vehicle wrecked), it refers to disembarked models in the case of vehicle explodes. I don't know how it can be more clear?

You say common sense and there shouldn't be a barrier, but what about models spread around the circumferance of the vehicle at 2" gaps 3" deep. Hence in a wrecked result the unit would be destroyed yet there is space for them between the models just not whilst keeping to the 1" rule. The precedent for how the rules work is right there, yet you claim that for the vehicle explodes result the rules work radically different to every other case in the game and claim that is common sense?

A rule that would mean that the enemy unit would not be able to move away and could only move to assault you (and the same restriction would apply to you), yet you are not locked in combat or you'd have to shoot men away at each other to remove those within 1" to allow movement again. You claim the rule gives a situation where Space Marines using older models are very likley to find themselves at an impass with no resolution ditto Orks in their trucks. You claim this is how the rule is supposed to work?

FlingitNow wrote:
You've switch from RaW to an actual game. If you are playing an actual game then you will have to use the rules of the game as written by games workshop in which case it is disembarking and any not placeable using the 1" are destroyed.

Are you aware that RAW means "the rules of the game as written by games workshop"? and all that we are discussing is exactly how must/should be the rules used?

Whilst Gorkamorka can argue symantecs with the wording in an actual game the rules are pretty clear and the smallest amount of common sense is required to apply them. So in an entirely hypothetical Raw discussion Gorkamorka has a tenuous if not unconvincing argument, but in an actual game the rules are quite obvious.

RAW discussions do happen in real games and the rules you see as obvious are not so, otherwise this topic would consist of oly two posts: one question and one answer to which we all agree.

Please, don't put words in my mouth. And please, don't argue rules completely incorrectly.
Without any solid RAW arguments, which you have not provided, you cannot claim that the RAW is on your side.
Explodes does not use disembarking. Period. That's it. You CANNOT say that RAW it uses the disembarking rules, or that it was obviously intended to use disembarking, or if only it used disembarking it would work the way you want it to, or that a non-specific implication from another rule somehow explicitly changes the rule to use disembarking.
Do not argue common sense, do not argue how you would play it as though that was RAW.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth the post was put on here for you to read and respond. So are you really telling me in an actual game you'd try to play it the way you claim is RaW?

You say that Vehicle explodes doesn't use the disembark rules period (I think you mean full stop). However it doesn't state anywhere that is doesn't use these rules and the models are going from embarked to disembarked (you'd accept that right?). Granted neither does it state categorically that it does use the disembarking rules in a situation where models are going from embarked to disembarked but it does imply it at several junctures. Whilst the rules for disembarking would clear up the huge holes that not using those rules create?

So do you accept:

1) The models in the vehicle are embarked before the explosion?

2) The models are disembarked after the explosion?

3) The disembarking rules are quite clear (whether or not they apply to this situation)?

4) Not using the disembarking rules breaks for lots of situations for the rules going forward (i.e. not moving within 1" for the follwoing turn, what happnes when you can't fit all the models in the footprint).

Can you give me 4 yes or no please?

FlingitNow wrote:

For instance the rules don't specifiy how far you have to throw a dice. If I had a dice with the 6 pointing upward in my fingers and dropped it 1mm onto the table that would technically qualify as throwing a d6, and there is no rule expressly forbidding it, because common sense should tell you that is dumb.

In fact you do not throw dice, you have to ROLL them (p.2 of the rulebook)... but i digress

@agalavis-The thread you quoted from me was a reply I made to Fenris-77 a page ago. Fenris said that in the tank shock and ram rules there were sections that stated models could remain within 1" of enemy models. I asked where that rule was located. I wasn't trying to bring another topic into discussion. The current one is confused enough.

@Gorkamorka -I agree with you that the rules for wrecked-explodes don't specifically say that you cannot place the transported models within 1" of an enemy unit, but the counter to this is those same rules don't specifically say you can.

Are you aware that RAW means "the rules of the game as written by games workshop"? and all that we are discussing is exactly how must/should be the rules used?

I disagree RaW is about the exact words of the text. The rules as written by Games workshop refers to the rules of the games as designed by Games Workshop that they have then transfered onto text as best they can expecting people to use common sense. RaW is not about common sense it is about reading the rules as if you are a computer and applying them as directly and obtusely as possible.

For instance if something gives a vehicle a cover save the vehicle can only use that against wounding hits which of course there will never be. Only if the vehicle is obscured can it then take cover saves from penetrating or glancing hits. It doesn't take a genius to work out that that is stupid and clearly never GWs intention. However in real game terms you can just assume that anything that doesn't specifically bestow obscured to a vehicle is just not meant to give vehicles a cover save (like for instance the SW power that refers to 5+ cover saves for squads which is never a defined term in itself anyway).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In fact you do not throw dice, you have to ROLL them (p.2 of the rulebook)... but i digress

You get my point though it doesn't specify how to roll dice. I could put the dice with a 6 on the side and roll the 6 onto the top with my hand and the dice has been "rolled". Pretty certain no one would let the 6 stand though (unless it was an LD test ).

All I'm saying is that the rules expect a certain level of common sense and due to their complexity in order to play the game at all you have to apply it. The common sense in this case is pretty obvious.

FlingitNow wrote:

Ok, let's say you disembark, you count as moving for shooting, but about the placement: would you allow me to move as described in the disembarking rules? do i get to put my models within 2" of the now defunct vehicle and not closer to 1" of an enemy? of course not because the rule for explosions state where can i put my models, effectively modifying the area of the disembarking rule. The new area is the footprint, no mention of keeping the inch restriction. You do not get to pick which parts of the original rule apply and which doesn't. All placement related stuff falls under the exception.

You can argue it is not disembarking, but once you accept that it is the game is up. Disembarking is movement. This overrides the normal restriction on disembarking as you place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than 2" of the exits, it does not state it overrides any other laws of movement. One of the laws of movement is to not be within 1" of an enemy model...

Please read again what you quoted from my post. I say exactly why even if you disembark after the explosion you do not have to mind the gap. I will say it again, slowly this time because my english might lack some polish:
-The explosion rule would contain an exception regarding the model's placement.
-The 1" gap is a rule that affect the model's placement while disembarking.
-ALL rules regarding model placement during a disembark after an explosion would be replaced by the exception.
-Hence, you can place your models in the area stated in the exception which is the vehicle footprint.

The destruction of models is another topic, and only applies in the case of a "Destroyed - Wreckage" result. So that part has NOTHING to do with the explosion result.

So do you accept:

1) The models in the vehicle are embarked before the explosion?

2) The models are disembarked after the explosion?

3) The disembarking rules are quite clear (whether or not they apply to this situation)?

4) Not using the disembarking rules breaks for lots of situations for the rules going forward (i.e. not moving within 1" for the follwoing turn, what happnes when you can't fit all the models in the footprint).

Can you give me 4 yes or no please?

This is not for me, but i have to say that those are three facts and an opinion, so you could get a yes, yes yes, no.

time wizard wrote: The tank shock rule allows the tank to make a special kind of attack. Think of it as an assault move by the tank, and assaulting models are allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model. But if the models the tank 'assaults' would end up under the tank, they are moved out of the way but must still leave 1" between themselves and the vehicle. The !' distance must still be maintained.

As for ramming, if the rammed vehicle is not removed, the ramming vehicle halts. And again ramming is a special kind of tank shock so it is a special type of assault a vehicle can make against another vehicle. This assault move is, again, an exception to the 1" rule because it is an attack that just happens to take place in the Movement phase.

If I missed the parts of the rule you were referring to, please point them out to me.

I'm not sure you understand completely why I brought this up, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The main reason, which is fully supported even by the diagrams that accompany the rules on the quoted pages, is that there's more than one rule in the book that allows a model to be moved to withint an inch of another model (and remain there). The phrase you're looking for btw is "comes into contact" (right hand column at the top of page 69). Neither that nor the accompanying diagram contain even the slightest hint that the 1" plays any role.

It's not an assault either, no matter how many times you put 'assault' in quotation marks, not in any way the 40K rules recognize. Ramming might be fairly categorized as a special attack (in some sort of general sense), but that doesn't make it a special kind of assault, which is what you'd need it to be if you wanted the 1" to stand as monolithically as people here have suggested it does. I understand why you want liken it to assault, and I might even agree with you in a broad sort of way, but that doesn't change anything about the RAW. A major prop for the positions of a couple of guys in this thread rests on the 1" rule and their contention that there aren't any exceptions to it except for the assault rules. I'm simply pointing out that that isn't the case.

The most damning part is the rules for ramming a walker, which, should the walker fail or not attempt a DoG atack, leave the vehicle in base to base with the Walker without being 'in assault'. That and the fact that there are no explicit or implicit instructions in the rules for ramming that require you to move either model 'back' to being an inch away after the action has been resolved.

This isn't, btw, supposed to be an argument that proves anything as far as the OP goes. Just that there's precedent for situations in the rules where a model can be within 1" of an enemy model and not in assault, even when an assault is possible in normal cirumstances (vehicle ramming walker).

time wizard wrote:
@Gorkamorka -I agree with you that the rules for wrecked-explodes don't specifically say that you cannot place the transported models within 1" of an enemy unit, but the counter to this is those same rules don't specifically say you can.

Just one more teensy post, since this is also a repeated argument and is also completely flawed and not how rules are argued.

The rule gives me permission to place the units where the transport was, with no listed caveats or restrictions involving enemy models and without invoking any of the 1" restrictions elsewhere in the rulebook.

The rule does not have to give me specific permission to do something that the general action allows me to do and I am not disallowed from doing by any rules.
You could equally argue that it does not give me explicit permission to place them there on teusdays, or within a mile of a tree... but without a relevant restriction then that isn't required at all.

Without a restriction, placing the units within 1" of an enemy model within the previous transport footprint is completely allowed by the RAW of the explodes result without a specific allowance.

agalavis

I say exactly why even if you disembark after the explosion you do not have to mind the gap. I will say it again, slowly this time because my english might lack some polish:

so at this point we are assuming the rules for disembarking are in effect in which case it is movement and all the normal movement restriction apply. Your English is miles better than my Spanish To be honest your English miles better than most English peoples English (probably mine included ).

-The explosion rule would contain an exception regarding the model's placement.

Yes it says they are place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than within 2" of exits as usual.

-The 1" gap is a rule that affect the model's placement while disembarking.

Correct

-ALL rules regarding model placement during a disembark after an explosion would be replaced by the exception.

Wrong only those that are specifically stated to be changed. Otherwise for instance you could place models on top of each other or at each point they'd have to rewrite the entire rule book cover all the rules that still stand.

-Hence, you can place your models in the area stated in the exception which is the vehicle footprint.

Yes but still abbiding by normal movement rules, for instance not placing models on top of each other and not placing models within 1" of the enemy.

The destruction of models is another topic, and only applies in the case of a "Destroyed - Wreckage" result. So that part has NOTHING to do with the explosion result.

Unless you are assuming the vehicle disembarking rules are working the same for both results. Taking away that ability you are at an impass the minute the models in a vehicle cannot fit in its footprint. You'd be lucky to get more that 6 Spacemarines in the footprint of the old 2nd Ed Rhino for instance. At that point your rules break down.

Which is what I was talking about on my 4th point, but thank you for the yeses and the no .

Gorkamorka has already conceded his interpretation breaks down at this point too.

My interpretation only asks for you to assume that you use the disembarking rules when a model is going from embarked to disembarked. To assume that this is implied by the rules refering to models being disembarked after a vehicle explodes results and that nodels can be forcibly disembarked by a vehicle destroyed result (if it was just a wrecked result they'd have surely just said wrecked).

The other interpretation asks you to ignore these and for the vehicle explodes result to be totally different from every similar situation in the rules and that you are at an impass the minute you have tioo many models to fit in the footprint.

FlingitNow wrote:
3) The disembarking rules are quite clear (whether or not they apply to this situation)?

4) Not using the disembarking rules breaks for lots of situations for the rules going forward (i.e. not moving within 1" for the follwoing turn, what happnes when you can't fit all the models in the footprint).

You can't directly use the disembark rules for the explosion result. The disembark rules used for the Vehicle Destroyed - wrecked result (and detailed on the rest of pg 67) require there to be a vehicle, with access points, to disembark from. That's why the wrecked rule on pg67 has you do the disembark and take a pin test first, and only after that replace the vehicle with a wreck. The explosion result removes the vehicle before the pin test and before placing any models on the board. It might seem niggly, but the specific rules for disembarking that you want to apply here absolutely require a vehicle at the beginning of the rules sequence, and the explosion result doesn't give you that.

Disembark, as the rule is detailed on page 67, only provides two options. In both cases a vehicle must be present, and disembarking models must be placed either within 2" of one of that vehicle's access point, or within 2" of the vehicle hull in the case of emergency disembarkation. Resolving a Destroyed - explodes! result can satisfiy none of those criteria, so I fail to see why anyone would argue that those rules are being used.

Fenris 77 in the case of a vehicle ramming a walker as they are in base to base contact in the assault phase is the walker allowed to attack the vehicle? This is a question I'm not arguing either way. The reason I ask is if you assault a vehicle you are not locked in combat with it and you don;t destroy it. If it remains stationary (or just pivots on the spot) as you remain in base to base contact you are allowed to attack again in its turn. The implication being if you are in base to base contact with a vehicle you are allowed to attack it. Because in this instance they are not locked in combat with the vehicle nor have they launched an assault but can attacked based purely on being in base to base contact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disembark, as the rule is detailed on page 67, only provides two options. In both cases a vehicle must be present, and disembarking models must be placed either within 2" of one of that vehicle's access point, or within 2" of the vehicle hull in the case of emergency disembarkation. Resolving a Destroyed - explodes! result can satisfiy none of those criteria, so I fail to see why anyone would argue that those rules are being used.

I can see where you are coming from. However as you state the disembarking rules require you to disembark with 2" of the exits (or hull in emergeancy), fortunately the rules tell you what to do in the case where there is no vehicle to disembark from you place your models (presumably according to all the normal rules as it doesn't state differently) in the footprint of the model. Then take the pinning check. Hence it tells you specifically what changes need to be made to the disembarking rules given the new situation as you can't take the pinning check until the models are placed and in this instance you can't place the models until the vehicle is removed. Hence why the rules cover exactly what to change in this instance.

FlingitNow wrote: Fenris 77 in the case of a vehicle ramming a walker as they are in base to base contact in the assault phase is the walker allowed to attack the vehicle? This is a question I'm not arguing either way. The reason I ask is if you assault a vehicle you are not locked in combat with it and you don;t destroy it. If it remains stationary (or just pivots on the spot) as you remain in base to base contact you are allowed to attack again in its turn. The implication being if you are in base to base contact with a vehicle you are allowed to attack it. Because in this instance they are not locked in combat with the vehicle nor have they launched an assault but can attacked based purely on being in base to base contact.

I'd assume not actually. That rule requires the vehicle to have been assaulted in the first place, which isn't the case here. Since you can't fulfill any of the listed conditions (Vehicle was assaulted, survived, and hasn't moved) I don't see how we can just skip past that to use the part of the rule you want to apply. It's a case of in condition X action Y is permitted, and we don't have condition X.

FlingitNow wrote:
I can see where you are coming from. However as you state the disembarking rules require you to disembark with 2" of the exits (or hull in emergeancy), fortunately the rules tell you what to do in the case where there is no vehicle to disembark from you place your models (presumably according to all the normal rules as it doesn't state differently) in the footprint of the model. Then take the pinning check. Hence it tells you specifically what changes need to be made to the disembarking rules given the new situation as you can't take the pinning check until the models are placed and in this instance you can't place the models until the vehicle is removed. Hence why the rules cover exactly what to change in this instance.

Hah. Except that's not at all what the rules say. At least not the rules for disembarking. The rules for disembarking only list the conditions I mentioned. The rule in the explodes! entry is just that - rules for what to do when the vehicle is affected by an explodes result. People point to the use of the word 'disembarked' in the note and from there want to tie back into the actual disembarking rules, which includes the stipulation that models may not be placed within 1" of the enemy. The problem with that is that you cannot apply the disembark rules as a whole, and the explodes! rule doesn't reference the disembark rule at all (while the wrecked rule does).

If the placement detailed in the explodes! result referenced mechanics detailed in the disembark rules you'd be correct, and at that point the vehicle-sized template would just be a variation on within 2" of access point or hull. That placement isn't a part of the disembark rules though, so any attempt to apply any part of those rules to the mechanics of the explodes! reslt is wishful thinking. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to it that way (cause it certainly does). I am saying that the RAW in no way fully supports you position though. Not only are the explodes! rules not in the correct place to make you argument fly, but the rules in the explodes! result don't even follow the same pattern as the rules for disembarking, which deep sixes a lot of the credibility in the argument from similarity.

You need to somehow get around the fact that your position requires you to cherry pick the bits of rules that suit your desired result but without reference to how appropriate that cherry picking is in the context of the entire rule in question.

I'd assume not actually. That rule requires the vehicle to have been assaulted in the first place, which isn't the case here. Since you can't fulfill any of the listed conditions (Vehicle was assaulted, survived, and hasn't moved) I don't see how we can just skip past that to use the part of the rule you want to apply. It's a case of in condition X action Y is permitted, and we don't have condition X.

I thought that would be the case just wanted to check, cheers

Hah. Except that's not at all what the rules say. At least not the rules for disembarking. The rules for disembarking only list the conditions I mentioned. The rule in the explodes! entry is just that - rules for what to do when the vehicle is affected by an explodes result. People point to the use of the word 'disembarked' in the note and from there want to tie back into the actual disembarking rules, which includes the stipulation that models may not be placed within 1" of the enemy. The problem with that is that you cannot apply the disembark rules as a whole, and the explodes! rule doesn't reference the disembark rule at all (while the wrecked rule does).

If the placement detailed in the explodes! result referenced mechanics detailed in the disembark rules you'd be correct, and at that point the vehicle-sized template would just be a variation on within 2" of access point or hull. That placement isn't a part of the disembark rules though, so any attempt to apply any part of those rules to the mechanics of the explodes! reslt is wishful thinking. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to it that way (cause it certainly does). I am saying that the RAW in no way fully supports you position though. Not only are the explodes! rules not in the correct place to make you argument fly, but the rules in the explodes! result don't even follow the same pattern as the rules for disembarking, which deep sixes a lot of the credibility in the argument from similarity.

You need to somehow get around the fact that your position requires you to cherry pick the bits of rules that suit your desired result but without reference to how appropriate that cherry picking is in the context of the entire rule in question.

The rules for disembarking state if you can't emergeancy disembark you can't disembark. The rules for wrecked change this so they work forth egiven situation (in that you have to disembark). I'm not cherry picking at all I'm apply all the rules as they stand except for the exceptions stated in the rules.

For instance would you agree I was right by RaW if the Paragraph read:

The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP- hits equal to the number of models embarked. The surviving passengers disembark and are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a pinning test.

I've highlight the 2 words added. I'd also like to point out that this is no longer about RaW as the discussion as moved onto what are the rules of the game (which are different to RaW, which is what are the rules of the game would be if you read then word by word and don't apply any common sense and it ceases to be a playable game as i can "roll" a 6 whenever I want without breaking RaW). You see it seems quite obvious (well to someone of my intellegence anyway) from all the references and how that rules work that in any case where a model is going from embarked to disembarked you are assumed to be using the disembarking rules.

For instance the Wrecked rules say you disembark but they don't specify you have to do this following the disembarking rules stated elsewhere. The use of the word disembark is there purely because from an English point of view it makes sense as the vehicle is still there. It seems obvious GW assume you are going to continue using the disembarking rules for Vehicle explodes as you are again disembarking.

FlingitNow wrote:For instance the Wrecked rules say you disembark but they don't specify you have to do this following the disembarking rules stated elsewhere. The use of the word disembark is there purely because from an English point of view it makes sense as the vehicle is still there. It seems obvious GW assume you are going to continue using the disembarking rules for Vehicle explodes as you are again disembarking.

Actually - it does. The wrecked result says that the unit must immeadiately disembark and if they are unable to disembark they are destroyed. This is a very clear reference to the disembarking rules.

The explodes result states that the vehicle is removed, the unit is to resolve the relavent wounds, and remaining models are to be placed where the vehicle used to be. They then take a pinning test. No mention of disembarking at all. In fact it specifically says to "place the models where the vehicle used to be" - not to "disembark" them. There is nothing left to disembark from in fact. All previous points before the explode rule specifically mention disembarking - this one does not.

As a result - in their next turn - a unit completely surrounded would be forced to assault (as long as they are not pinned, in which case they do nothing).

First post w00t
Edit: fixed my shoddy quoting.

Draw the outline of a rhino on a piece of paper and try to fit 10 models inside. You can't do it. The rhino is roughly 2" wide and 3" long so at most you could possibly fit 6 Space Marines inside. Now if the three Marines facing the side of the rhino that was assaulted are removed because obviously they'll be within 1" of an enemy unit then at best you are left with three Space Marines.

If it were me and I was playing in a tournament I would allow my opponent to place models outside of the outline left by the exploded transport as long as they are within 2" of the outline and at least 1" away from my unit(s) that assaulted the rhino. Sure my way is not RAW but it is sporting and I think something should be said for that.

G

How many players out there use something for craters when vehicles explode? I got several sheets of fun foam material at the craft store and now I have rhino templates, as well as chimera, land raider, and wave serpent sizes. I always get plenty of compliments on my craters when I go to tourneys!

Krak_kirby, I made up a bunch of plaster craters and such partly because I was bored one weekend, and partly to avoid not having any craters if someone is inconsiderate enough to blow up my tanks (or if I'm lucky enough to blow up theirs).

On topic, my major complaint about not enforcing the customary 1" exclusion is that it allows the possibility of placing a model in base contact with an enemy model which wasn't assaulted. The possibility of that condition without an explicit statement either allowing it or stating what to do when it happens is sufficiently bad that the one inch rule should be applied.

solkan wrote:Krak_kirby, I made up a bunch of plaster craters and such partly because I was bored one weekend, and partly to avoid not having any craters if someone is inconsiderate enough to blow up my tanks (or if I'm lucky enough to blow up theirs).

On topic, my major complaint about not enforcing the customary 1" exclusion is that it allows the possibility of placing a model in base contact with an enemy model which wasn't assaulted. The possibility of that condition without an explicit statement either allowing it or stating what to do when it happens is sufficiently bad that the one inch rule should be applied.

I don't understand why it matters. If the models are forced to be placed within an inch of the enemy or (god forbid) in base contact so what? It isn't their turn anyway - and even when it becomes their turn - being completely surrounded and within one inch of the enemy, they have no choice but to assault. Seeing as the opponent assaulted the unit in the first place - I don't see the issue.

In general - I can understand why you would not want to be disadvantaged when rolling a supposedly better result than say wrecked, where if the unit can't disembark they are destroyed. This is advantageous to you if the unit inside is very good in close combat because they are all killed without getting a chance to retaliate. In contrast - if the vehicle explodes - the enemy unit might be able to assault you moments later (if they are not pinned). And that is the root of the whole argument - people dont want to be disadvantaged in the supposedly BETTER scenario.

Think about this for a moment though - if you were your troops - and you were shooting at a vehicle, of course you would love it to explode. You would marvel at your own awesomeness and high-five your comrades. If you are assaulting the vehicle however - why the hell would you want it to explode all over you? It is clearly not a nice thing to happen - and I think it is designed to reflect this by having any surviving troops inside able to assault you if they are not pinned.

One thing to remember : the vehichle has an aura of 2" (because it's a transport.)
so, if it happens that you can't fit them in the tanks place, put them up to 2" away, otherwise, get a crater.

I made templates for my Ork Trukks and Battlewagons out of some balsa wood, grey pumice and some spare Ork bits. It makes it very easy for gameplay purposes.

Draw the outline of a rhino on a piece of paper and try to fit 10 models inside. You can't do it. The rhino is roughly 2" wide and 3" long so at most you could possibly fit 6 Space Marines inside. Now if the three Marines facing the side of the rhino that was assaulted are removed because obviously they'll be within 1" of an enemy unit then at best you are left with three Space Marines.

Why are you left with 3 Space Marines? If the disembarking rules are applied yes. Otherwise you have to place all 10 models in the area left by the Rhino, so the game just stops at that point as you can't do this.

On how you'd play it in the 2nd paragraph that is how I'd play it to he'd have to bunch up his mean but they'd be allowed to spill over up to 2" around as long as they observe the 1" rule.

If the vehicle is totally surrounded? Then in this instance they'd all be dead just as if a Vehicle Wrecked result had been acheived.

It might not be RaW but that is still the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't understand why it matters. If the models are forced to be placed within an inch of the enemy or (god forbid) in base contact so what? It isn't their turn anyway - and even when it becomes their turn - being completely surrounded and within one inch of the enemy, they have no choice but to assault. Seeing as the opponent assaulted the unit in the first place - I don't see the issue.

In general - I can understand why you would not want to be disadvantaged when rolling a supposedly better result than say wrecked, where if the unit can't disembark they are destroyed. This is advantageous to you if the unit inside is very good in close combat because they are all killed without getting a chance to retaliate. In contrast - if the vehicle explodes - the enemy unit might be able to assault you moments later (if they are not pinned). And that is the root of the whole argument - people dont want to be disadvantaged in the supposedly BETTER scenario.

Think about this for a moment though - if you were your troops - and you were shooting at a vehicle, of course you would love it to explode. You would marvel at your own awesomeness and high-five your comrades. If you are assaulting the vehicle however - why the hell would you want it to explode all over you? It is clearly not a nice thing to happen - and I think it is designed to reflect this by having any surviving troops inside able to assault you if they are not pinned.

The models aren't forced to assault they can fire their rapidfire or heavy weapons in which case they aren't allowed to assault. So another turn goes by of 2 units in base to base combat not in assault. In fact a player may decide this is what he wants to do simply to pin your unit there for another turn without assaulting them. As it can put everything in base to base contact and leave a big whole in the middle...

You are also forgetting the scenario where the Space Marines have their rhino exploded and mor ethan 6 survive the explosion whether or not you surround them you are at an impass. Or in fact any case where you are attacking one side of the transport then models would be placed in base to base contact but not be in assault and not be able to walk away next turn.

Explodes is already a worse result for the attackers they get hit by an S3 attack so that is already covered. But why would Explodes do less damage to a squad in a vehicle than wrecked would? That just makes no sense.

We are all agree with the following to facts:

1) The models are embarked before the vehicle explodes

2) The models are disembarked after the vehicle explodes

So surely using the disembarking rules is not that great a stretch of logic? Particularly as the "rules" given to cover this eventuality are just 2 sentences, leaving lots up in the air, whilst normal disembarking rules cover almost an entire page...

FlingitNow wrote:It might not be RaW but that is still the rules.

Bwahahahahahahhahahahhahhaha.

FlingitNow wrote:We are all agree with the following to facts:

1) The models are embarked before the vehicle explodes

2) The models are disembarked after the vehicle explodes

I am afraid we are all not agree that they are disembarking. The vehicle exploded. There is nothing left to "disembark" from. Therefore it is impossible to disembark in the traditional sense. However, we are arguing semantics here. Upon thinking about it at great length *strokes e-beard* I do believe that FlingitNow has a point here (as much as I hate losing a good argument).

FlingitNow wrote:
Why are you left with 3 Space Marines? If the disembarking rules are applied yes. Otherwise you have to place all 10 models in the area left by the Rhino, so the game just stops at that point as you can't do this.

OK, you have some good points, but let's leave off the ridiculous game ending paradox argument. You and I both know it's completely spurious.

FlingitNow wrote:
On how you'd play it in the 2nd paragraph that is how I'd play it to he'd have to bunch up his mean but they'd be allowed to spill over up to 2" around as long as they observe the 1" rule.

If the vehicle is totally surrounded? Then in this instance they'd all be dead just as if a Vehicle Wrecked result had been acheived.

It might not be RaW but that is still the rules.

Um, no. Not at all. The rules don't say that at all. In fact, they specifically say something tat's close to the opposite. Any rhino sized vehicle or bigger will always have room for at least a couple of guys to survuve even if the 1" rule is in effect.

FlingitNow wrote:
The models aren't forced to assault they can fire their rapidfire or heavy weapons in which case they aren't allowed to assault. So another turn goes by of 2 units in base to base combat not in assault. In fact a player may decide this is what he wants to do simply to pin your unit there for another turn without assaulting them. As it can put everything in base to base contact and leave a big whole in the middle...

You are also forgetting the scenario where the Space Marines have their rhino exploded and mor ethan 6 survive the explosion whether or not you surround them you are at an impass. Or in fact any case where you are attacking one side of the transport then models would be placed in base to base contact but not be in assault and not be able to walk away next turn.

Explodes is already a worse result for the attackers they get hit by an S3 attack so that is already covered. But why would Explodes do less damage to a squad in a vehicle than wrecked would? That just makes no sense.

You've a step far here IMO. It's not the case that placing on the vehicle footprint automatically means base to base. All it would really entail is close but not in combat. That doesn't break the game rules at all. If they guy prefers to shoot fine, that doesn't break the rules either. Nothing's been lockd in BtB somehow in kind of no 1" scenario, and your examples don't really alter anything about how the explodes! result is or isn't supposed to work. I can see that you're just fleshing out your "it cases too many problems to be the case" position, but I think you need to abandon that line of reasoning, since it's the rules equivalent of a house rule.

As for what 'makes sense' about the various impacts of explodes vs wrecked, that's a non-starter. The order that the results are listed in, while generally assumed to worsen as the number rises, are not guaranteed to do so, and you're also only talking about a very narrow and specific example of when explodes! is less harmful than Wrecked. In pretty much every scenario explodes! is worse, just not in this specific one, and your thoughts about how 'fair' that sounds don't have any place on YMDC.

FlingitNow wrote:
We are all agree with the following to facts:

1) The models are embarked before the vehicle explodes

2) The models are disembarked after the vehicle explodes

So surely using the disembarking rules is not that great a stretch of logic? Particularly as the "rules" given to cover this eventuality are just 2 sentences, leaving lots up in the air, whilst normal disembarking rules cover almost an entire page...

That logic is no help. I can very easily just call the explodes! result an alternative to the disembark rules and say that yes, the squad is certainly disembarked after their vehicle explodes, but they didn't use the disembark rules to do so. The presence of the word doesn't guaranteed use of the rule, since 'disembarked' here refers to a state after an action, and that action doesn't have to be a use of the disembark rules. In fact, the counter position to yours specifically stipulates that explodes! and disembark are different, so all you've really said here is "if you assume that I'm correct then I'm correct" which isn't a position I find compelling.

As for the normal rules and their size relative to the explodes! result, that's a non-starter too. The disembark rules might be bigger, and in close proximity, but that doesn't mean they apply. Plus you can't actually use those rules to govern the action described in the explodes! result. From a RAW perspective you're on very thin ice (nonexistent ice actually). Your position makes sense, and this isn't something I'd ever argue about in an actual game, but this is YMDC here, and the standards for proof are a little different. I'd probably even play it your way in a game, but that doesn't mean you have a RAW basis for how youøre playing it - and you don't.

I am afraid we are all not agree that they are disembarking.

I didn't in that bit say that the were disembarking. The rules refer to models being disembarked after an explosion result and we all agree before hand they were embarked. It states clearly on page 67 "However, if a transport is drestroyed (either result), the unit may assault the now disembarked passenger...". They are embarked before hand and on either result are disembarked afterwards.

So the 2 points hold. Whether or not the models have performed the action disembarking to get from embarked to disembarked is the key barrier. RaW doesn't specifically state that this is the case, but I don't think it requires much common sense to work this out.

Just as the rules don't state how you roll a dice but it doesn't take much common sense to work out that lying a dice with a 6 on its side and rolling up to the top with your hand is not a valid dice roll. I think you are assumed to know how to roll a dice (though it never specifcally tells you), just as you are assumed to realise that you have to disembark to get from embarked to disembarked whilst it doesn't specifically state this is the case for the explosion result...

Just to point out that as a Tau and Marine player this rule doesn't really benefit me at all as I'm unlikely to be able to effectively surround an opponents vehicle in an assault (or indeed assault anything at all in the case of Tau)... The "RaW" interpretation would suit me better (particularly my Tau).

FlingitNow wrote:

I am afraid we are all not agree that they are disembarking.

I didn't in that bit say that the were disembarking. The rules refer to models being disembarked after an explosion result and we all agree before hand they were embarked. It states clearly on page 67 "However, if a transport is drestroyed (either result), the unit may assault the now disembarked passenger...". They are embarked before hand and on either result are disembarked afterwards.

So the 2 points hold. Whether or not the models have performed the action disembarking to get from embarked to disembarked is the key barrier. RaW doesn't specifically state that this is the case, but I don't think it requires much common sense to work this out.

The RAW isn't going to get you a definitive answer on this, and the fact that the models are referred to as disembarked in the part you quote doesn't move the argument ahead for either side. From a 'makes sense' perspective yeah, I'm all for keeping the 1" rule in play (or not, I'm easy). Common sense answers aren't what YMDC aims for though. Personally, I'd just roll with this and whatever the other guy does should it come up is fine by me (within reason). Since the RAW doesn't seem to have a definitive answer I'd generally tend towards th permissive.

Actually, I think there is a definitive answer, Mannanhin found it, see other thread:

Page 67, main rules:
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers,

Destroyed, either result equals disembarked passengers. Cannot disembark within an inch. Good enough? It is for me.

don_mondo wrote:Actually, I think there is a definitive answer, Mannanhin found it, see other thread:

Page 67, main rules:
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers,

Destroyed, either result equals disembarked passengers. Cannot disembark within an inch. Good enough? It is for me.

Nope, not good enough (for YMDC). You can't actually employ the mechanics described in the disembark rules to the sequence of explodes! (see my earlier posts), and further the use of 'disembark' there describes a state after an action, not necessarily a disembark action though. The folks that holds the explodes! result as not disembarking can make a prefectly cogent argument without making nonsense out of the part you quoted.

Like I said, from an in game perspective I don't think anyone's going to have huge issues either way, but the RAW simply isn't definitive.

Doesn't matter if you're applying the disembarkation mechanics or not. The passengers are considered to have disembarked, that means the restrictions on disembarking are in effect and may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model.

don_mondo wrote:Doesn't matter if you're applying the disembarkation mechanics or not. The passengers are considered to have disembarked, that means the restrictions on disembarking are in effect and may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model.

Nope, it actually means nothing of the sort. The withint 1" is part of the disembark mechanics, so in order to apply it here you have to be using those mechanics, and you cn't use them in the case of a Vehicle Destroyed - explodes! result. I already explined why the use of 'disembarked' doesn't prove use of the disembarking mechanic too (see previous post).

That's sort of the center of the whole argument actually.

That rule about being able to assault the former passengers isn't the rule that you consult when you place the passengers, though.

I'd be inclined to let the exploded vehicle's former occupants fit anywhere in the vehicle's footprint, because that's where the relevant rule says you have to put them.

OK, whatever. People have askked for rules that say where the exploded result is either a) move or b) disemabrking. Two places in the main rules state that getting out of a destroyed vehicle (either result) is disembarking. If you still want to insist that a disembarked unit did not disembark, go for it. For me, it's settled. Outta here.

Ian Sturrock wrote:I'd be inclined to let the exploded vehicle's former occupants fit anywhere in the vehicle's footprint, because that's where the relevant rule says you have to put them.

What?!? Follow the simply stated instructions? That's just crazy talk!

I'm with you. I don't understand this artificial need to apply rules for disembarking when the vehicle to disembark from no longer exists. There's two ways to get out of a vehicle: YOU move away from the vehicle or THE VEHICLE moves (in an explosive kind of way, in many small pieces) away from you. If it's the VEHICLE that's moving did you move? No. Are you disembarked? Yes.

"I did not leave the ship, sir. The ship left me." -- Charles Lightoller, RMS Titanic.

Yeah -- the vehicle no longer exists, so to my mind, you don't need to disembark from it...

I can see the arguments that go the other way, but given how simple the description of where you have to place the former passengers is, I don't really think they're valid.

don_mondo wrote:OK, whatever. People have askked for rules that say where the exploded result is either a) move or b) disemabrking. Two places in the main rules state that getting out of a destroyed vehicle (either result) is disembarking. If you still want to insist that a disembarked unit did not disembark, go for it. For me, it's settled. Outta here.

It says that the models are disembarked, yes, btu that's not the same as saying that the exploded! result on the damage table uses the mechanics for disembarking - which it plainly does not. So while you might find that a niggly distinction, I'm quite happy to keep pointing it out, and I'll add that if niggly distinctions aren't your cup of tea then YMDC must be awfully frustrating place for you to post.

FlingitNow wrote:
It might not be RaW but that is still the rules.

That's just... wow.

OK, you pulled me back in. See, it's that niggling distinction that makes it work as I'm saying as opposed to the "just put them anywhere in the footprint" idea.

Does the unit count as having disembarked?
Yes

Does it matter how they arrived at the positions they occupy?
Nope.

Niggling distinction, doesn't matter how they got there, all that matters is that they're a disembarked unit.

All that matters is that they count as having disembarked and a disembarked model may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model. So yes, you follow the Exploded rules and place them in the footprint as opposed to performing a normal disembark move. That's all that it changes. Doesn't change that it's still a disembark and still abides by any other rules/restrictions that were not specifically mentioned as being changed.

For you to be correct, you have to show a specific exemption to the one inch rule (and there isn't one). otherwise, it's still in effect.

don_mondo wrote:For you to be correct, you have to show a specific exemption to the one inch rule (and there isn't one). otherwise, it's still in effect.

"The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test."

There's your exception. If I can be "where the vehicle used to be" then I can be within 1" of where you are IF you models are within 1" of the vehicle when it explodes.

don_mondo wrote:
Does it matter how they arrived at the positions they occupy?
Nope.

All that matters is that they count as having disembarked and... may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model.

How can you even think this argument is logical? If they didn't arrive at their positions by disembarking, how do select parts of the disembarking rules suddenly apply post-placement?

For you to be correct, you have to show a specific exemption to the one inch rule (and there isn't one). otherwise, it's still in effect.

No. No no no no no no no. That is not how RAW works.
If you cannot prove that there is a 1" restriction, I do not have to prove that I override it.

You cannot invoke the 1" restriction from the disembarking rules unless you can prove that the action being performed by placing the units counts as disembarking. You have not and cannot.
You cannot invoke the 1" restriction from the movement rules unless you can prove that the action the units are performing when they are placed counts as moving. You have not and cannot.

You must provide concrete proof from the 'explodes' rule, from rules it references, or from rules that specifically change or modify the specifics of the 'explodes' rule. You have not and cannot.
You are quite simply and completely in the wrong by RAW.

don_mondo wrote:OK, you pulled me back in. See, it's that niggling distinction that makes it work as I'm saying as opposed to the "just put them anywhere in the footprint" idea.

Does the unit count as having disembarked?
Yes

Does it matter how they arrived at the positions they occupy?
Nope.

Niggling distinction, doesn't matter how they got there, all that matters is that they're a disembarked unit.

All that matters is that they count as having disembarked and a disembarked model may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model. So yes, you follow the Exploded rules and place them in the footprint as opposed to performing a normal disembark move. That's all that it changes. Doesn't change that it's still a disembark and still abides by any other rules/restrictions that were not specifically mentioned as being changed.

YMDC is tough to let go of. You use the phrase 'counts as disembarked' like it means something, but it doesn't. Go take a careful look at the rules for disembarking, specifically at the order of operations and the models necessary to use the mechanics. Then take a careful look at explodes!. You'll find you simply cannot use the disembark mechaincs in that case. You don't have a vehicle with access points or a hull. In fact, what you're suggesting actually breaks the disembarking rules. If you can't use the basic mechanic then you cannot enforce the restrictions placed on those mechanics.

don_mondo wrote:For you to be correct, you have to show a specific exemption to the one inch rule (and there isn't one). otherwise, it's still in effect.

No, I only have to show that there are exceptions to the one inch rule outside of the rules for assault, and I've already done that. The rules for ramming allow a model to move within 1" and stay there (even next to models with a WS), and those rules don't specifically exempt themselves from the general rule. That amounts to carte blanche for situations like this. It's not evidence that's it's specifically allowed here mind you, but it's evidence that we don't need a specific exemption in order for a specific rule to ignore the general 1" rule.

So what are we going to do when the unit doesnt fit in the transports footprint. You can't put them in a big pile.

I still outright disagree that the unit is counted or should be counted as disembarking. It is a simple matter of two points - both of which are dot points, the best kind.

• There is no longer a vehicle to disembark from. You simply cannot use the disembarking mechanics without the vehicle.


• The rules specifically tell you to place the models in the footprint of the vehicle.

Besides the fact that the rules are quite clear on that - there is the problem of some units not fitting in the footprint of their transport. That is the only thing not covered by the rule as written IMO.

This 1 inch thing..... seriously..... the rules TELL you to place the models there - if there is an enemy within one inch so what? Where this matters it is mentioned in the rules.
Either the unit is forced directly into assault (by being within an inch of the enemy with no escape and therefore unable to do anything else) or is pinned, and the enemy can either assault, or get the hell outa dodge on their next turn.

maxinstuff wrote:Besides the fact that the rules are quite clear on that - there is the problem of some units not fitting in the footprint of their transport. That is the only thing not covered by the rule as written IMO.

That's the only real question in my mind. Past precedent has been to count models that cannot fit in there as destroyed, but that's not spelled out in this edition of the rules. It's just a compromise I would use to keep the game moving.

After plodding thru the semantics here, I have to say that Maxinstuff has it. Fill the footprint of the vehicle, and just get on with the game.

That does make it 'better' in some cases for the vehicle to 'explode!' than just be 'wrecked' - but I would usually prefer a 'weapon destroyed' result to a 'stunned' result also!

Usually enough of my poorly-armored Orks die in the explosion to fit easily. (And note to fellow Orks players - if you are worried about it - make bigger battlewagons & trucks! The new GW one is kind of small to fit 20 Orks in it's smoking ruins)

There's one thing I think most people have missed. You do not have to fit a model's entire base in the footprint of the vehicle. You can have models lined up in the place that used to be the edges of the tank with their bases slightly within the original footprint. You can certainly fit 10 marines in the footprint of a Rhino this way.

I'd be inclined to let the exploded vehicle's former occupants fit anywhere in the vehicle's footprint, because that's where the relevant rule says you have to put them.

So your arguement means you can stack models as it doesn't specifically state you can't in this instance. Or obey unit coherency as it doesn't specifically state you have to any any of the normal rules regarding placement or movement of models?

To be honest reading this thread the conclusion has to be:

RaW Does not specifically state that the disembarking rules are in effect at the point that the models go from being embarked to being disembarked so you can assume that they aren't by RaW.

However the rules of the game are not changed by a RaW interpretation and they are quite clear that the disembarking rules apply and the changes to those rules are specifically not in the description of the Vehicle explodes results for transports.

So in a hypothetical situation you can argue the toss and symantecs that you are free to place the models anywhere in the foot print. Just like you can argue that placing a dive so the 6 is on the side and then rollling it onto the top counts as a valid dice role by RaW.

However in a real game both are quite obviously ludicrous positions to try to hold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You can certainly fit 10 marines in the footprint of a Rhino this way.

Not if it surounded by Orks/'Nids (or indeed anything). Where does the rules state that you can place the models in this fashion? Only using the disembarking rules could you argue this and then we're back to the 1" restriction...

FlingitNow wrote:
RaW Does not specifically state that the disembarking rules are in effect at the point that the models go from being embarked to being disembarked so you can assume that they aren't by RaW.

No. You are the one making an assumption, and assuming that the disembarking rules are somehow in affect when the book doesn't say that they are anywhere.

FlingitNow wrote:
However the rules of the game are not changed by a RaW interpretation and they are quite clear that the disembarking rules apply and the changes to those rules are specifically not in the description of the Vehicle explodes results for transports.

The rules of the game are RAW, there is no difference. When you agree to play a game of warhammer 40k with someone, you agree to play by the rules in the rulebook (with any specific changes you and your opponent agree to, and any specific interperetations of issues where strict RAW gives 2+ possible choices).
Your definition of 'the rules of the game' is much more in line with How You Would Play It or Rules As Played or Rules As Intended, terms that are not RAW or the actual rules and ideas that cannot be used when arguing about actual RAW.

Nowhere is the explodes result rule defined in writing as using disembarking for placing the units. Nowhere. You are making that up. You are quite literally completely fabricating this claim of a written connection that you claim is 'quite clear'.

In order for you to be right by RAW, you must provide concrete proof from the 'explodes' rule, from rules it references internally, or from rules that specifically change or modify the specifics of the 'explodes' rule. You have not and cannot.

FlingitNow wrote:
So your arguement means you can stack models as it doesn't specifically state you can't in this instance. Or obey unit coherency as it doesn't specifically state you have to any any of the normal rules regarding placement or movement of models?
...
So in a hypothetical situation you can argue the toss and symantecs that you are free to place the models anywhere in the foot print. Just like you can argue that placing a dive so the 6 is on the side and then rollling it onto the top counts as a valid dice role by RaW.

As I covered before, no. Placing is mentioned in the impassable terrain description, you cannot stack them.
Stop trying to build a straw man argument about how undefined 'die rolling' is in the ruleset. Argue the point of contention, not its consequences or common sense or real world examples or any of the other deflection techniques you or other posters continue to attempt. That is not how YMDC works.

The rules of the game are RAW, there is no difference.

Wrong the rules of the game are those laid down by gamesworkshop, strict RaW is about hypothetical rules based on symantecs. The rules in the rule book are clear even if they don't specifically state it strong enough for a RaW definition. Stop trying to claim RaW is the rules they are not. The rules are those defined by games workshop and require commonsense to be applied in order that they be used. Like for instance the common assumption in RaW arguments that a specific rule trumps a general rule yet this is never stated any where in any rule book. It is something you have to come up with in order to get anywhere with the rules, it is a bit of common sense...

The rules and RaW are 2 totally seperate things, if there is something in the rules that is clearly and obviously implied it is a rule where as by RaW it would not be.

No. You are the one making an assumption, and assuming that the disembarking rules are somehow in affect when the book doesn't say that they are anywhere.

You are assuming they are not because it doesn't specifically state that they are. It is still an assumption, like we assume that the night fighting rules aren't in effect for Spearhead or Pitchesd Battle as it doesn't specifically state that they are.

As I covered before, no. Placing is mentioned in the impassable terrain description, you cannot stack models as you appear to be implying.

I wasn't implying that at all in that section. Someone else had said that you can place the models entirely freely in the footprint because the rules say where the vehicle was. I was in the earlier part illustrating that other rules are still assumed to be in place. Like you have mentioned with stacking models. Their arguiment was imply that you throw the rest of the rule book out and look at just those 2 sentences when dealing with the situation.

Stop trying to build a straw man argument about how undefined 'die rolling' is in the ruleset.

Stop trying to build a straw man argument about how the disembarking rules are not always assumed to be in effect when models are going from embarked to disembarked

The Green Git wrote:

maxinstuff wrote:Besides the fact that the rules are quite clear on that - there is the problem of some units not fitting in the footprint of their transport. That is the only thing not covered by the rule as written IMO.

That's the only real question in my mind. Past precedent has been to count models that cannot fit in there as destroyed, but that's not spelled out in this edition of the rules. It's just a compromise I would use to keep the game moving.

I agree - counting models that don't fit as destroyed is a good compromise. I prefer this to arbitrarily using disembarking rules. Ideally though - vehicles should really be in the same scale as the other models and this will be a non-issue

Think about it - the vehicles footprint is surrounded by enemies in direct contact with it. After you remove an inch all the way around you have virtually no room left - it makes no sense at all in the context of the RAW.

Fling It, this acronym, RAW, Rules As Written, I do not think it means what you think it means...

What other rules can there be, other than the rules as written? Anything else is either your house rule -- which is absolutely fine, as long as you are clear to identify it as such -- or it's your guess as to the Rules As Intended. We can all take our own guesses at what rules were intended by GW, though, as we have been doing throughout this thread. Your guesses don't magically become more plausible than everyone else's guesses just because you claim that your guesses are the "real rules", but are somehow not the Rules As Written.

Ok, two points directed @FlingitNow but the rest applies to all of us:
I think we all (at least I) agree that common sense have to be used to apply the rules properly. Be that the rules as written, intended, or house rules. You do not have to repeat that point unless someone specifically argues about that.

The point about placing models on top of models have also been addressed with the rules that apply. In case you can show why the noted rules do not apply, please accept that point as solved.

Please read the post about how YMDC works http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page in order to avoid repeating the same points without bringing new valid (as described in that post) argument. This thread is not about what RAW means but about what happens after the vehicle explodes by RAW (as expressed in the cited thread). Please let's treat the topic at hand. In case anyone is interested, we can open another topic with this same question but in a How You Would Play It point of view.

I stopped posting because I have no more arguments, but i still follow the thread because i want to see if someone can give valid arguments that can make me chance my point of view. Until I can say something new I won't post again here. I assume that everyone following the thread have read the arguments and counter arguments so far, so let's stop repeating ourselves to avoid polluting the discussion. Even if someone repeats a point refuted before without anything new, let's avoid the temptation to do the same.

I am in complete agreement with Don Mondo and thanks to Ragnar for providing us with the rule we needed to end this dispute. It's obvious that the squad counts as disembarking.

I'm out of here.

G

So I am understanding, with little time to read, where the issue occurs.

The issue occurs in assuming that all rules are set aside with the idea that everything is explained in the explodes rules - only . . . for example but not exclusively:

- how to deal with models in base contact

- how to deal with models in terrain

- why to ignore restrictions such as the "1 inch rule" which, although written in movement, are not worded to be limited as such

- how to deal with models that cannot be placed following the "Wrecked - Explodes" results

- how to deal with movement

There is nothing explaining why certain rules/guidelines/ideals are ignored overwritten so it seems an apples vs oranges "more specific" issue without either side being able to post/find/have rules saying YES I CAN -- which is what the system requires.

Simple answer seems to be -- discuss this with your opponent. I have yet to find _ANYONE_ who would say it is possible to place models in base/on top of/within an inch of enemies without using assaults.

Perhaps that is me, and I know I need to read more -- which I shall once the time is available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I assume parts of this are wrong and parts are misinterpreted, but time is what it is, and I have less of it currently.

I think this is a really interesting read for technical reasons. Many of the examples/reasons are true despite the rules obviously meaning otherwise...

kirsanth wrote:
- why to ignore restrictions such as the "1 inch rule" which, although written in movement, are not worded to be limited as such

...

There is nothing explaining why certain rules/guidelines/ideals are ignored overwritten so it seems an apples vs oranges "more specific" issue without either side being able to post/find/have rules saying YES I CAN -- which is what the system requires.

That is not how the rules work, or what the RAW says. The movement rule specifically applies only to movement, and the placement is not defined as movement. Go read the rule:
'A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy
model during the Movement and Shooting phases –
this is only possible in an assault during the Assault
phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not
move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting.'

I cannot understand why people keep insisting it should be applied, as though there is a general 1" rule that applies to all units at all times and has to be overridden. The opposite is true, the 1" rule must be specifically invoked through the movement rules (or the disembarking rules).

There is no general 1" restriction regarding placing units for the rule to override. Placing units has no such restriction.

Hey everyone, I would like to say that I currently do not play 40k, (thinking of getting back to the hobby and i have taken interest in reading 40k threads), that being said I have been reading this thread and would like to throw in my thoughts from an outsiders point of view who really doesn't know the rules. I would think that the 1" rule would not apply in this case because the unit did not disembark, they are simply disembarked or no longer in the transport. (the transport blew up around them,throwing the debris... ) they have not moved and remain in the same place that they were currently occupying.

I reread the exploding vehicles rule last night in my Little Grey Book, the one which comes with AoBR.

It doesn't actually say put the ex-passengers within the outline of the ex-vehicle. It says put the surviving ex-passengers "where the vehicle was" after having place a crater, debris field or some other such indication mark.

This gives us a reasonable compromise as follows:

Place the surviving models inside or within two inches of the vehicle's notional outline, and not within 1 inch of an enemy model.

Combined with the likely losses from an explosion this should allow a lot of the models to be placed however a clever enemy would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the survivors by the one inch rule.

I don't claim this is RaW.

Killkrazy is bang on, on how the rules should be played. And also right that it is not true under RaW.

Fling It, this acronym, RAW, Rules As Written, I do not think it means what you think it means...

What other rules can there be, other than the rules as written? Anything else is either your house rule -- which is absolutely fine, as long as you are clear to identify it as such -- or it's your guess as to the Rules As Intended.

That is not how the rules work, or what the RAW says.

RaW is not the rules stop trying to pass them off as such. The rules of the game are the rules as designed by games workshop and then written down in the rulebook. RaW is not about the rules it is about defining the rules baswed purely on the written text not on the actual rules. To understand the rules you have to read the text and then apply common sense (which is subjective). If common sense is not obvious then you take your best guess at RaI, use RaW or come up with a house rule, in any case they may be the same as the actual rules but may well not be. Or look at the FAQs or e-mail into Gamesworkshop to get a response.

This belief that RaW is some how the same as the rules (even though using pure RaW you get a totally unplayable game, where people can choose what result to roll on each dice) is what leads people to claim the FAQs are rule changes when they aren't. They are definitions of the rules that weren't made clear at first attempt when applying RaW you got the wrong answer (just as you can get the wrong answer by trying to apply RaI or a house rule).

FlingitNow wrote:
RaW is not the rules stop trying to pass them off as such. The rules of the game are the rules as designed by games workshop and then written down in the rulebook. RaW is not about the rules it is about defining the rules baswed purely on the written text not on the actual rules. To understand the rules you have to read the text and then apply common sense (which is subjective). If common sense is not obvious then you take your best guess at RaI, use RaW or come up with a house rule, in any case they may be the same as the actual rules but may well not be. Or look at the FAQs or e-mail into Gamesworkshop to get a response.

Actually, you're completely wrong. The rules are the written text, and everything else is conjecture. Anytime you want to circumvent or ignore the rules as they are written down in favour of something that you think makes 'more sense' you're breaking the rules. Perhaps with the best fo intentions, but that's what you're doing all the same. If you want to get all emo about the spirit of the rules feel free, but YMDC isn't the place for it. YMDC is specifically about the text and what the text actually says, not what you think the designers at GW thought it should say, or what they intended it to say.

YMDC = RAW, no exceptions.

The rules are the written text, and everything else is conjecture. Anytime you want to circumvent or ignore the rules as they are written down in favour of something that you think makes 'more sense' you're breaking the rules.

Sorry you are wrong here, the rules are the rules designed by Gamesworkshop, the written text is their best attempt at communicating those to us. Like in society you have laws but due to wording those laws could be miss-used hence why the spirit and intention behind the law is more important than the written text of the law. Hence why in court you can only be ruled against if you have broken the spirit and intention behind the law rather than the written text. If this was a legal battle and you tried to make the RaW arguement you'd be laughed out of court.

The strict text is not the rules hence the FAQs are NEVER rules changes they are clarifications on rules that already exist but are not explicitely defined or correctly explained in the rule book.

YMDC = RAW, no exceptions.

That may well be the case but YMDC isn't the definition of the rules what we say or agree to on here has no impact on the rules of the game.

I disagree that RaW should be the only interpretation here. If I come here, I want to know how the rule will actually be played so I know what to expect. I can read the book myself if I want to know purely RaW.

However, I also disagree that the 1" rule is the "obvious" way of playing it. There have been a number of posts agreeing they play it as anywhere in the crater - more than those that are claiming there is a 1" rule. In my opinion, that area was already claimed to be my "space" on the table, and when you assaulted me, you came through the 1" margin. The rules support my claim as I can "place the models where the vehicle used to be".

You're assuming that the end result of most people's reading is the same as the Raw. That's awfully charitable of you. YMDC is helpful precisely because it forces up to examine the RaW in very close detail. That's mostly not how people read the rulebook.

RaW isn't anything close to how something is going to be played either. In a lot of cases people will make rational compromises about things, which is fine, and very much in the spirit of the game. Knowing the RaW is essential to making informed decisions in those cases though.

Anyway, enough about RaW, this isnøt really the place, as interesting a topic as it might be.

I disagree that RaW should be the only interpretation here. If I come here, I want to know how the rule will actually be played so I know what to expect. I can read the book myself if I want to know purely RaW.

However, I also disagree that the 1" rule is the "obvious" way of playing it. There have been a number of posts agreeing they play it as anywhere in the crater - more than those that are claiming there is a 1" rule. In my opinion, that area was already claimed to be my "space" on the table, and when you assaulted me, you came through the 1" margin. The rules support my claim as I can "place the models where the vehicle used to be".

That is fair enough but poeple play wrong rules all the time. Quite a common one is that once destroying a unit with shooting you can then assault a different unit (which is of course wrong RaI and RaW).

I'd argue you do probably have RaW on your side but that it is not near specific enough to draw a full RaW conclusion. I don't think it is a stretch of logic to define anything that takes you from being embarked to disembarked as disembarking, whether done actively (i.e. jumping out of the vehicle) or passively (having the vehicle blown away from under you). If you accept that then the 1" rule has to be in effect. Although not explicit I'd tend to claim the 2" around where the hull was should be in effect too, the rules do not specify what is meant "by where the vehicle used to be". Foot print is probably the most direct translation though the vehicle was also "on the game board" and also "in the room" not to mention "on planet earth" you could argue that you can place the models where ever the hell you want if you want to be pedantic about it...

Kilkrazy wrote:I reread the exploding vehicles rule last night in my Little Grey Book, the one which comes with AoBR.

It doesn't actually say put the ex-passengers within the outline of the ex-vehicle. It says put the surviving ex-passengers "where the vehicle was" after having place a crater, debris field or some other such indication mark.

This gives us a reasonable compromise as follows:

Place the surviving models inside or within two inches of the vehicle's notional outline, and not within 1 inch of an enemy model.

Combined with the likely losses from an explosion this should allow a lot of the models to be placed however a clever enemy would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the survivors by the one inch rule.
I don't claim this is RaW.

In my opinion assuming that a clever army would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the suvivors by the one inch rule is not a valid justification for using the one inch rule. if you are allowed to assume that then one could assume that any one with in the blast radius would be dodging the flying debis allowing surviving models that were in the exploding unit to make an attack on the distracted units.(as you can see this would lead to endless scenerios of creative storytelling) My understanding of the 1" rule is that it is there to prevent models from moving through enemy unit lines to attack more preferred target, because if you moved that close to a CC unit they are not going to just let you walk by because you are not out of the movement phase yet. That being said, it seems that the 1" rule only applies when you are tring to move from point A to point B without going into assult. I have not seen any rule stating that models are not allowed to be within 1" of enemy units. they are allowed. they just cannot move there without assulting.

In my opinion assuming that a clever army would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the suvivors by the one inch rule is not a valid justification for using the one inch rule.

But if they get a wrecked result by surounding the vehicle the 1" rule means the entire squad is wiped out... This is explicitely stated in the rules, so I don't understand hwo that can be a justification for saying none should die in the vehicle explodes result...

The 1" inch is there for many reasons one is the one you have stated. It also specifically states the 1" rule exists to make it clear which models are and are not in assault...

FlingitNow wrote:

In my opinion assuming that a clever army would be able to surround the vehicle and kill some of the suvivors by the one inch rule is not a valid justification for using the one inch rule.

But if they get a wrecked result by surounding the vehicle the 1" rule means the entire squad is wiped out... This is explicitely stated in the rules, so I don't understand hwo that can be a justification for saying none should die in the vehicle explodes result...

The 1" inch is there for many reasons one is the one you have stated. It also specifically states the 1" rule exists to make it clear which models are and are not in assault...

so it is explicitly stated that on a wrecked result with the vehicle being surrounded the entire squad is wiped out, and it is explicitly stated that in a deepstrike mishap the model that is too close to the enemy is destroyed. but it makes no mention on the explodes result that the units are destroyed. Instead it explicitly states that the models may be placed within the footprint of the destroyed model.

I advise using the 1 inch rule because from my reading it is unclear whether it really should apply in this case or not.

For example, there is a rule that passengers disembarking from a vehicle must not get out within 1 inch of an enemy.

The explosion rule says place the "disembarked passengers" where the vehicle was.

However the disembarkation rule says your passengers have to climb out of the access hatches.

Someone earlier made the point that there aren't any access hatches because there isn't any vehicle anymore. Also, you can't climb out of the vehicle and be inside the area where it was.

Consequently the two rules do not logically cross-refer and this gives a reasonable argument that the 1 inch rule does not apply in this situation. That brings in some other issues.

All in all the RaW is unclear, so we should look for a reasonable interpretation which preserves as much of the RaW as we can understand and seems applicable, and gives a simple playable result.

you would have to be thee inches deep around the vehicle to kill the disembarking unit. as the emergency disembark rules says you can place them two inches from the vehicles hull.and since a wreck becomes terrain that includes on top of the wreck

Kilkrazy wrote:
All in all the RaW is unclear

It really, really, isn't.
Noone has presented a valid raw argument that would apply any 1" rule in the book to the explodes result text. Go read all of the 1" rules you can find, none of them apply to the explodes text.

You yourself gave a nice summary of the conditions that must be met for a satisfactory RAW argument, and they have not been met.

The best argument for 1" is a nonspecific inference from a later rule that refers to 'disembarked passengers' from a general class of vehicle results. It does not state that the passengers must have used disembarking, that explodes uses disembarking, that placing models counts as movement, or even that explodes models must be 'disembarked' (it just allows you to perform an action on passengers that are now disembarked, it doesn't actually state that all passengers from the results are 'disembarked'). There is nothing there that changes how the explodes result is performed to require a 1" separation.

Even if you somehow took the implication completely on faith (because it makes more sense, and it prevents problems, my opponents claim), attempting to use the disembarking rule for explodes instantly breaks the game. The majority of the steps and caveats are unperformable, and are not specifically ovveridden anywhere in explodes. The rule even leads to the exact same game hang if you manage to progess far enough somehow, as it does not specify what happens to unplacable models if an emergency disembark is blocked like wrecked does.

No correct RAW argument has been presented for the 1" rule applying. The 1" argument simply is not valid by RAW.

I don't care about RaW.

I want an easy to apply solution which gets 90% of players carrying on with the game as smoothly as possible.

FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry you are wrong here, the rules are the rules designed by Gamesworkshop, the written text is their best attempt at communicating those to us. Like in society you have laws but due to wording those laws could be miss-used hence why the spirit and intention behind the law is more important than the written text of the law. Hence why in court you can only be ruled against if you have broken the spirit and intention behind the law rather than the written text. If this was a legal battle and you tried to make the RaW arguement you'd be laughed out of court.

The strict text is not the rules hence the FAQs are NEVER rules changes they are clarifications on rules that already exist but are not explicitely defined or correctly explained in the rule book.

YMDC = RAW, no exceptions.

That may well be the case but YMDC isn't the definition of the rules what we say or agree to on here has no impact on the rules of the game.

I think this is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've read on Dakka in a long while. What is this, some sort of bizarre Plato's golden mean of rules argument? The real rules are just floating around in the eather waiting for you to grasp them in a flash of satori? Get a grip son. The rules are what's in the book, nothing more and nothing less. What GW might have meant is a meaningless and trite place to interpret the rules from. GW's goal was not to produce rules in some kind of abstract sense (like you suggest) but to produce a book of rules. A book that tells us how to play the game. Once it's down in black and white it's out of GWs hands.

Your spirit and intent argument is so obviously self serving it makes me laugh too. I suppose it's your interpretation we should be looking too eh? Give me a break. Since the blindingly obvious seems to have escaped you I'll be plain - RaI cannot be the primary interpretive tool for the rules because there's no standard of proof an only a tenuous connection to text. RaI can be a very useful tool to use when the RaW falls short, but to put it first in line is to put the cart before the horse. I'm not even sure you have a cart. but that's an argument for anither day.

This nonsense doesn't belong anywhere near YMDC.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't care about RaW.

I want an easy to apply solution which gets 90% of players carrying on with the game as smoothly as possible.

Then you need to completely rewrite the relevant rules.
You need to specify that it counts as disembarking (or some strange form of movement, I suppose), and then write an entire paragraph about how to perform this strange disembark, then write in additional rules for how to resolve the edge cases like unplaceable models.

Or

Write a caveat into the current rule for how to resolve unplaceable models (probably simply destroyed).

I'll happily discuss possible RAP house rule or FAQ solutions to the problems with the RAW.
Just don't state that both sides have a valid RAW argument, or that the RAW is unclear.

That's what I would do if I was the INAT FAQ Committee.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't care about RaW.

I want an easy to apply solution which gets 90% of players carrying on with the game as smoothly as possible.

Then you need to completely rewrite the relevant rules.
You need to specify that it counts as disembarking (or some strange form of movement, I suppose), and then write an entire paragraph about how to perform this strange disembark, then write in additional rules for how to resolve the edge cases like unplaceable models.

You don't! All the have to assume is that the disembarking rules laid out before hand count with the adjustments mentioned under the exploded result.

Hence instead of placing models within 2" of the hull or exits points you place them under the footprint of the hull. Instead of rolling for pinning before replacing the vehicle with a wreck you roll for pinning as soon as you have placed the disembarked passengers. It requires only 2 words to be added to the paragraph to make this cast iron as I illustrated earlier in this very thread. Or it requires you to assume that going from embarked to disembarked is disembarking... As opposed to assuming it doesn't mean that.

So Killkrazy if you want the workable solution use the one you first posted, giving the 2" grace seems sensible and consistent and destroying models not placeable again follows the games rules and patterns. This seems the most obvious solution and is quite clearly what the rules intent to happen.

I think this is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've read on Dakka in a long while. What is this, some sort of bizarre Plato's golden mean of rules argument? The real rules are just floating around in the eather waiting for you to grasp them in a flash of satori? Get a grip son. The rules are what's in the book, nothing more and nothing less. What GW might have meant is a meaningless and trite place to interpret the rules from. GW's goal was not to produce rules in some kind of abstract sense (like you suggest) but to produce a book of rules. A book that tells us how to play the game. Once it's down in black and white it's out of GWs hands.

Your spirit and intent argument is so obviously self serving it makes me laugh too. I suppose it's your interpretation we should be looking too eh? Give me a break. Since the blindingly obvious seems to have escaped you I'll be plain - RaI cannot be the primary interpretive tool for the rules because there's no standard of proof an only a tenuous connection to text. RaI can be a very useful tool to use when the RaW falls short, but to put it first in line is to put the cart before the horse. I'm not even sure you have a cart. but that's an argument for anither day.

This nonsense doesn't belong anywhere near YMDC.

I never said that my interpretation has to be the correct one. RaW doesn't work at all it breaks down at the first hurdle of dice rolling. I presume to you Space Marines with Fleet can get out of a Rhino fleet and then assault? I supposed the stuff in the Eldar Codex that has incorrect page references means that they have no special rules now as none are on the page(s) referenced?

The rulebook is a tool to teach us the rules of the game it is not the definition of the rules. Those are defined by GW and to claim they are out of GWs hands is pretty ludicrous. You see, to use the rulebook you need to have commonsense and apply it to the rules as written to get the actual rules. Some situations are still not covered even by the final rules as the writer would not have thought of every thing. You seem to lack the basic understand of the point of language, it exists purely to communicate ideas. However it is not perfect and miscommunication can occur that doesn't change the original idea and that doesn't trump the original idea even after it is written down. The reason I brought up the spirit and intent is because the most basic rule structure under which society runs is the legal system. The "spirit and intent" of the law is the legal definition of how those laws should be used in the country in which these rules were written.

The fact that is how the rules are suppose to be useed is illustrated by the many FAQs that strict adherents of RaW claim are rule changes. If they are rule changes why are they listed as FAQ results rather than published as rules changes? The reason is, is that they are not rule changes they are clarifications of rules written imperfectly hence your claim that GW have no control after the printing process is both wrong and out right ridiculous.

Kharnflakes wrote:you would have to be thee inches deep around the vehicle to kill the disembarking unit. as the emergency disembark rules says you can place them two inches from the vehicles hull.and since a wreck becomes terrain that includes on top of the wreck

Not really. When a vehicle is wrecked the passengers are deployed then it becomes terrain.

FlingitNow wrote:
I never said that my interpretation has to be the correct one. RaW doesn't work at all it breaks down at the first hurdle of dice rolling. I presume to you Space Marines with Fleet can get out of a Rhino fleet and then assault? I supposed the stuff in the Eldar Codex that has incorrect page references means that they have no special rules now as none are on the page(s) referenced?

There's a huge and obvious difference between a simple editing mistake and a rule that doesn't work like you think it should. You want the second option to be the case. It's not. We're not talking about an editing mistake here.

FlingitNow wrote:
The rulebook is a tool to teach us the rules of the game it is not the definition of the rules. Those are defined by GW and to claim they are out of GWs hands is pretty ludicrous. You see, to use the rulebook you need to have commonsense and apply it to the rules as written to get the actual rules. Some situations are still not covered even by the final rules as the writer would not have thought of every thing. You seem to lack the basic understand of the point of language, it exists purely to communicate ideas. However it is not perfect and miscommunication can occur that doesn't change the original idea and that doesn't trump the original idea even after it is written down. The reason I brought up the spirit and intent is because the most basic rule structure under which society runs is the legal system. The "spirit and intent" of the law is the legal definition of how those laws should be used in the country in which these rules were written.

No, what's ludicrous is your lack of comprehension here. The rules are defined by GW in the rule book. If they feel that something is unclear then they can and should issue an FAQ, but those are just extensions of the rulebook. In any case that's not covered by a FAQ the BGB and codexes are the only guide to the game available gamers. There's no mystical place where real rules happen and are simply indexed by the BGB. The book is the rules, and your opinion of what the writer might have wanted to say is about as meaningful as a fart on the breeze. It's what the writer did say that matters.

FlingitNow wrote:
The fact that is how the rules are suppose to be useed is illustrated by the many FAQs that strict adherents of RaW claim are rule changes. If they are rule changes why are they listed as FAQ results rather than published as rules changes? The reason is, is that they are not rule changes they are clarifications of rules written imperfectly hence your claim that GW have no control after the printing process is both wrong and out right ridiculous.

Some of them are rules changes. The fact that GW has second thoughts about the way something in the rules actually works is just a sign of (very occasional) common sense. You're just making up definitions here to btw, since there's actually no useful distinction between a rule change and a rule clarification. Your argument here doesn't even make any sense. If you want to continue to mistakle your opinion of RaI for actual rules you go right ahead, but I'll continue to excoriate you for it, as is right and proper with any notion so bizarre.

Your grasp of rhetoric is weak, and your grasp of what the very idea of 'rules' means is even weaker.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Kharnflakes wrote:you would have to be thee inches deep around the vehicle to kill the disembarking unit. as the emergency disembark rules says you can place them two inches from the vehicles hull.and since a wreck becomes terrain that includes on top of the wreck

Not really. When a vehicle is wrecked the passengers are deployed then it becomes terrain.

This is true in fact you also roll for pinning before the vehicle becomes terrain (technically). Also the 1" rule is in effect so you don't have to suround it by 3" just over 1" is fine. the back of their base has to be within 2" of the hull and more than 1" from you. Say you have it surounded to 1.1" the nearest they could deploy would be 2.1" of the Hull hence illegal...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

There's a huge and obvious difference between a simple editing mistake and a rule that doesn't work like you think it should. You want the second option to be the case. It's not. We're not talking about an editing mistake here.

It would require 2 words to be added to make my interpretation cast iron that is an editing mistake or a misjudgement by GW of how much commonsense we have...

In any case that's not covered by a FAQ the BGB and codexes are the only guide to the game available gamers.

Wrong you can email them for rules clarifications. the answers do not always strictly adhere to RaW, so what does that mean? These are now rule changes as well?

The book is the rules, and your opinion of what the writer might have wanted to say is about as meaningful as a fart on the breeze.

Whilst you are correct my oppinion of what the writer meant is meaningless. However what the writer meant is the rules even if he's explained them badly.

since there's actually no useful distinction between a rule change and a rule clarification.

There is a huge difference between a rule clarification and a rule change. One requires a rule to change (clue is in the title) the other clarifies a rule that is misunderstood but does not change the rule, thought it may require the wording of the rule to be changed.

If you want to continue to mistakle your opinion of RaI for actual rules you go right ahead, but I'll continue to excoriate you for it, as is right and proper with any notion so bizarre.

I've never said my oppinion of RaI ar the rules. However RaI is by definition the rules however defining RaI with only the rulebook is more difficult than defining RaW. My oppinion of RaI is irrelevant, but your claim that RaW some how trumps RaI is ludicrous in the extreme and as I said the rules system breaks down very quickly if you tryu to slavishly stick to this. Heck TMIR is right there to help you understand the rulebook is not infallible nor the last word.

Another silly question:
How would a model suffer damage and be forced to 'disembark'?

If this is ironclad, then page 79 would only need to say "or be forced" rather than "and/or be forced to".

In addition to the other points in my previous post. Other than the simple one that was, I mean.

How would a model suffer damage and be forced to 'disembark'?

I think you've just proved me cast iron right even by RaW. So I thank you for that, the wording is clear you can be forced to disembark and take damage, hence the explosion result is a forced disembark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps Kirsanth you are a genius!

Oddly I am distinctly ambivalent about this 'rule' now.

I very much understand the point being made, but it seems to be too much an attempt around rules.

It may be doing this within the rules - as pointed out by others. But I think RAW leads in other directions, given context.

At this point I really am just being pedantic, as there is no other way to figure out the actual rules (and what they mean) that I can see.

So, it's obvious that a few of you believe that getting out of a vehicle in any way is disembarking. Does this then apply to teleporting out by using Gate of Infinity? Are you saying you could teleport out of a Land Raider and then assault? Now who's presenting ludicrous ideas?

Teleporting follows its own and (generally) the deeptrike rules -- which has its own restrictions.

kirsanth wrote:Teleporting follows its own and (generally) the deeptrike rules -- which has its own restrictions.

It fits into the general "leaving a vehicle is disembarking" shenanigan that people are coming up with, so if they are right, this is how the game would be played. It clearly shows that leaving a vehicle is not automatically disembarking. BTW explodes follows its own rules as well, with its own restrictions.

Leaving a vehicle is disembarking. Whether it follows the rules for Disembarking may be debatable -- but the parts I have quoted and asked about seem to very much lean that way.

kirsanth wrote:Leaving a vehicle is disembarking. Whether it follows the rules for Disembarking may be debatable -- but the parts I have quoted and asked about seem to very much lean that way.

You have just admitted that you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. I am seeing very few reasons to continue arguing with you.

I did no such thing.
I hope you can stop arguing with people, in general.
This is a great place for debate. Arguing, not so much.

thebetter1 wrote:

You have just admitted that you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. I am seeing very few reasons to continue arguing with you.

No, you can't, because GoI uses the Deep Strike movement rules, which specifically forbid assaulting. Your example is flawed, because in this case there is a specific prohibition, irregardless of whether such an action counts as "disembarking" or not.

You have just admitted that you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. I am seeing very few reasons to continue arguing with you.

Just admit you were very wrong. The rules are now clear, they are exactly what it was obvious to assume they were from reading the rules and Kirsanth has proven it. Your example of a LR is totally flawed the DS rules are also employed which strictly forbid assaulting. Just as allowing you to assault out of a LR doesn't mean you can still assault if out of assault range all normal restrictions remain in place...

FlingitNow wrote:

You have just admitted that you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. I am seeing very few reasons to continue arguing with you.

Just admit you were very wrong. The rules are now clear, they are exactly what it was obvious to assume they were from reading the rules and Kirsanth has proven it. Your example of a LR is totally flawed the DS rules are also employed which strictly forbid assaulting. Just as allowing you to assault out of a LR doesn't mean you can still assault if out of assault range all normal restrictions remain in place...

Actually, I'm right. The assault vehicle rules do not specify that the normal restrictions for assaulting are in place. A unit that is out of range CAN assault, but the assault will fail when range is measured. They aren't magically prevented from declaring an assault before you take out your tape measure.

The bottom line: you believe leaving a vehicle is disembarking, and teleporting out of a vehicle is therefore disembarking, showing the flaw in your argument. You cannot try to apply intermediary rules whenever a change of state occurs.

thebetter1 wrote:
The assault vehicle rules do not specify that the normal restrictions for assaulting are in place. A unit that is out of range CAN assault, but the assault will fail when range is measured. They aren't magically prevented from declaring an assault before you take out your tape measure.

The bottom line: you believe leaving a vehicle is disembarking, and teleporting out of a vehicle is therefore disembarking, showing the flaw in your argument. You cannot try to apply intermediary rules whenever a change of state occurs.

So what? I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you were to teleport out of a Land Raider, certainly it's disembarking. However, you are placed on the board using the Deep Strike rules, which forbid assaulting. Therefore, you cannot assault. You have not demonstrated any "flaw" in my argument. There might be one, but you haven't shown it yet.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
The assault vehicle rules do not specify that the normal restrictions for assaulting are in place. A unit that is out of range CAN assault, but the assault will fail when range is measured. They aren't magically prevented from declaring an assault before you take out your tape measure.

The bottom line: you believe leaving a vehicle is disembarking, and teleporting out of a vehicle is therefore disembarking, showing the flaw in your argument. You cannot try to apply intermediary rules whenever a change of state occurs.

So what? I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you were to teleport out of a Land Raider, certainly it's disembarking. However, you are placed on the board using the Deep Strike rules, which forbid assaulting. Therefore, you cannot assault. You have not demonstrated any "flaw" in my argument. There might be one, but you haven't shown it yet.

The assault vehicle rule does not say "the restriction on assaulting from a moving transport is removed." That is implied by the general statement allowing you to assault. What you are now saying is that assault vehicle does not let you assault out of a moving Land Raider because there is a specific rule to prevent it in the transports section.

I don't get why it's so hard for people to understand that going from state A to C does not mean that you performed action B.

Because reading the rest of the rules seems to indicate that B is performed?

thebetter1 wrote: What you are now saying is that assault vehicle does not let you assault out of a moving Land Raider because there is a specific rule to prevent it in the transports section.

I don't get why it's so hard for people to understand that going from state A to C does not mean that you performed action B.

Would you mind explaining your reasoning, clearly, for this statement? Because I don't think I ever said that.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Would you mind explaining your reasoning, clearly, for this statement? Because I don't think I ever said that.

You have clearly stated that teleporting out of a Land Raider is disembarking. The Land Raider rules make it very clear that you can assault after disembarking from it regardless of restrictions (if you believe restrictions are not overwritten, the rule does nothing). Put together, this means that you believe you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. To say otherwise without refuting my statements would make you a hypocrite.

kirsanth wrote:Because reading the rest of the rules seems to indicate that B is performed?

How about you stop making up rules? The rulebook has to clearly say that leaving an exploded vehicle is disembarking for it to be so. It does not. Therefore it is not. The fact that you cannot come up with anything concrete on this is further evidence.

thebetter1 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Would you mind explaining your reasoning, clearly, for this statement? Because I don't think I ever said that.

You have clearly stated that teleporting out of a Land Raider is disembarking. The Land Raider rules make it very clear that you can assault after disembarking from it regardless of restrictions (if you believe restrictions are not overwritten, the rule does nothing). Put together, this means that you believe you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. To say otherwise without refuting my statements would make you a hypocrite.

As I don't have the SM codex, I can't comment on this rule. Can you quote it for me?

See page 5 of this thread.

I just went over it again. . . didn't see the text of the rule anywhere.

I was refering to my examples from the book -- not his. I was accused of making up rules.

kirsanth wrote:See page 5 of this thread.

Page 5 does not have any solid rules. We know that the models were in the vehicle and are not after it explodes. The rules refer to the passengers as being "disembarked," but this does not mean you get to throw in disembarkation rules in between even when the rulebook doesn't say to do so.


And no, I won't provide rules for people who do not have access to a rulebook. That wouldn't be very wise.

thebetter1 wrote:

And no, I won't provide rules for people who do not have access to a rulebook. That wouldn't be very wise.

Well, I don't feel the need to go spend 20 bucks for the sake of an Internet debate, and it's pointless to base an argument on data the other party has no access to. So I suppose at this point we simply agree to disagree.

Ok after reading this I have to ask. Since the rules state that if you kill a vehicle by shooting at it you may assault the disembarked passengers. Since some of you claim that you don't "disembark" from a vehicle that explodes does that mean you can't assault the guys that are now in the crater?

They either disembarked, making them subject to assault, or they didn't disembark meaning you can't assault them.

The troops are "disembarked." This did not mean that they disembark. Absolutely no one has come close to showing this.

Disembarked = not in a vehicle
Disembark = the action of leaving a vehicle by specific rules

This is supported further by the wording of "now disembarked" which shows that disembarked is a status rather than a past tense verb.

You can make it vague due to RAW (That's not terribly difficult to do) but it appears pretty clear RAI;

Pg. 66:
"However, they may embark and be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

Pg. 67
"Destroyed----Explodes!
The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP - hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting."

"...the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers...."



I guess when you get to this point of a discussion, you thank the Adepticon council for putting out a great FAQ.

As I noted in the other thread related to this question, there is another problem thats not being properly considered.

In 40k, specific rules > general rules. There are various general rules (such as models not moving within 1" of opponents models) that are superceded by more specific rules (units move into btb to assault).

On pg 67 we have a specific rule under Destroyed - explodes that tells us very specifically what to do with a transported unit in such a vehicle: "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be". That this happens to be less restrictive in one way than the normal disembarking rules is of no matter (its more restrictive in another way, cant disembark up to 2" away), it quite specifically tells us exactly how the models must be placed.

If they had wished for the normal disembarking rules to apply then they could have simply used the langauage in the previous paragraph, however they did not. They made a distinction here. Perhaps since the transport vehicle is already within 1" of the opponents models they felt that this should also apply to the passengers...we do not know.

From a strict reading of the rules however, we do know exactly where the models are to be placed. Whether or not they disembark is unimportant....they do not follow the general rules for disembarking because in this case we have more specific rules.



Sliggoth

AgeOfEgos wrote:You can make it vague due to RAW (That's not terribly difficult to do) but it appears pretty clear RAI;

I really see no reason to try to argue with RAI. The fact that you have to bring it up means you have no real arguments.

I read the same line on page 66 as AgeOfEgos did, right in the first paragraph of EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING.

"However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

I'm fairly certain the word "may" refers only to embarking, followed by being forced to disembark, represents the exception to the rule in the previous sentence.

The line refers to a destroyed transport, not wrecked and/or exploded specifically, so I posit that any wrecked result forces the passengers to disembark. If they are forced to disembark, they must follow the disembarking rules.

I also posit that the Destroyed - explodes entry is written to clarify disembarkation when the transport model is removed before the passengers are placed. It isn't ironclad, but careful reading of the rulebook makes me think this is RAI.

Krak_kirby wrote:I read the same line on page 66 as AgeOfEgos did, right in the first paragraph of EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING.

"However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

I'm fairly certain the word "may" refers only to embarking, followed by being forced to disembark, represents the exception to the rule in the previous sentence.

The line refers to a destroyed transport, not wrecked and/or exploded specifically, so I posit that any wrecked result forces the passengers to disembark. If they are forced to disembark, they must follow the disembarking rules.

I also posit that the Destroyed - explodes entry is written to clarify disembarkation when the transport model is removed before the passengers are placed. It isn't ironclad, but careful reading of the rulebook makes me think this is RAI.

I agree with you...but even if we disagreed I would gladly play it however my opponent wanted to, provided I knew before hand. In reality, I can only think of one time this has came up (and this was mostly due to one of my buddies hemming his own rhino in). Completely surrounding a transport, getting a Destroyed! not Wreck result and not killing enough models in the ensuing explosion to allow placement....is rather rare.

Again however, this should make us grateful for all of the work put into the Adepticon FAQ.

Krak_kirby wrote:"However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

This rule is not in the explodes section. It is part of an introduction about transport vehicles, and its rules are overwritten by the new rules about placing models.

And seriously, stop bringing RAI into a RAW discussion. You've already scared away just about everyone on my side from this topic just by dragging it on with unfair arguments.

This rule is not in the explodes section. It is part of an introduction about transport vehicles,

So the rules about disembarking are clear. Please read this thread. Everyone arguing against the 1" rule did so on the assumption that the vehicle explodes result is not disembarking. However the rules on page 79 clearly state that it is considered a forced disembarkation and hence the disembarking rules apply.

The reason everyone on your side has been "scared" away is because as soon as Kirsanth posted that quote their argument was done.

Your assertation that you blindly follow the 2 sentences under the vehicle explodes result implies you can place models on top of each other if you are ignoring the rest of the rule book and it would require that each section in the rule book to contain the entire rulebook to that point explaining that all normal rules apply...

RaW is clear and in this case follows RaI as has been proven on this thread.

FlingitNow wrote:

This rule is not in the explodes section. It is part of an introduction about transport vehicles,

So the rules about disembarking are clear. Please read this thread. Everyone arguing against the 1" rule did so on the assumption that the vehicle explodes result is not disembarking. However the rules on page 79 clearly state that it is considered a forced disembarkation and hence the disembarking rules apply.
.

No, it doesnt prove anything. There are rules for explodes! results. It doesnt matter if codex books or other rules imply anything. The rule specifically states to place your models where the vehicle used to be. That's it.

Even if it were disembarking (Im certainly not saying it is), there are more specific rules telling you what to do with an explodes result. The rule right before it specifies what you must do. A 6 roll does not tell you to do this. It does not restrict you in anyway.

And most importantly, you need to stop saying "RaW supports this"...No it doesnt. There is a rule for explodes. It does not have the rule as written to be 1" away. What you have are called assumptions - assuming that because the rule has a few indirect secondary references that they somehow trump the actual rules.

Oh yes, and believe me, if anyone is "scared away", it is due to the complete lack of comprehension and reading skills shown by the "1 inchers" who make silly posts with irrelevant points, and somehow claim "RaW".

Also, RaI is certainly not on your side.

No, it doesnt prove anything. There are rules for explodes! results. It doesnt matter if codex books or other rules imply anything. The rule specifically states to place your models where the vehicle used to be. That's it.

Even if it were disembarking (Im certainly not saying it is), there are more specific rules telling you what to do with an explodes result. The rule right before it specifies what you must do. A 6 roll does not tell you to do this. It does not restrict you in anyway.

And most importantly, you need to stop saying "RaW supports this"...No it doesnt. There is a rule for explodes. It does not have the rule as written to be 1" away. What you have are called assumptions - assuming that because the rule has a few indirect secondary references that they somehow trump the actual rules.

Oh yes, and believe me, if anyone is "scared away", it is due to the complete lack of comprehension and reading skills shown by the "1 inchers" who make silly posts with irrelevant points, and somehow claim "RaW".

Also, RaI is certainly not on your side.

Firstly RaI is obviously on my side. That is beyond question.

Secondly the section under wrecked doesn't state that all normal rules apply (i.e. the 1" rule) as it doesn't have to all normal rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

The rules state that Disembarking is a type of movement and the normal rules for movement apply (i.e. no placing within 1"). The rules state that the explosion results in a force disembarkation. Hence the disembarking rules apply.

This is RaW whether you like it or not the rules are very clear. It specifies that the explosion result is a forced disembarkation on page 79, it specifies the rules for disembarkation on page 67. It specifies on this same page the exceptions to those rules that you make when an explodes result is rolled.

These are the facts:

1) When disembarking you are not allowed with in 1" of an enemy model.

2) The explodes result is a forced disembark move.

You have no evidence to back up you claim other than we should ignore the rest of the rule book which means by your interpretation you can place models on top of each other...

FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly RaI is obviously on my side. That is beyond question.

The rules state that the explosion results in a force disembarkation. Hence the disembarking rules apply.

This is RaW whether you like it or not the rules are very clear. It specifies that the explosion result is a forced disembarkation on page 79, it specifies the rules for disembarkation on page 67. It specifies on this same page the exceptions to those rules that you make when an explodes result is rolled.

These are the facts:

1) When disembarking you are not allowed with in 1" of an enemy model.

2) The explodes result is a forced disembark move.

You have no evidence to back up you claim other than we should ignore the rest of the rule book which means by your interpretation you can place models on top of each other...

Everything you are saying is unsupported or fabricated. Again.

A non-specific statement that passengers may be disembarked forcibly if their transport is destroyed (overwriting the normal disembarking restriction) DOES NOT change the RAW of the explodes result rules to force it to use disembarking. Claiming that the rules state that explodes is a forced disembark subject to the disembark rules is entirely spurious.

You have no RAW legs to stand on, and your RAI stance is based on opinion and conjecture.
It is certainly not 'obviously... beyond question' as you have claimed.

FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly RaI is obviously on my side. That is beyond question.

Secondly the section under wrecked doesn't state that all normal rules apply (i.e. the 1" rule) as it doesn't have to all normal rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

The rules state that Disembarking is a type of movement and the normal rules for movement apply (i.e. no placing within 1"). The rules state that the explosion results in a force disembarkation. Hence the disembarking rules apply.

This is RaW whether you like it or not the rules are very clear. It specifies that the explosion result is a forced disembarkation on page 79, it specifies the rules for disembarkation on page 67. It specifies on this same page the exceptions to those rules that you make when an explodes result is rolled.

These are the facts:

1) When disembarking you are not allowed with in 1" of an enemy model.

2) The explodes result is a forced disembark move.

You have no evidence to back up you claim other than we should ignore the rest of the rule book which means by your interpretation you can place models on top of each other...

I have never seen such an ignorant, yet determined poster on here. Everything you just said is 100% BS. None of it is supported. This stuff is about as useful as the rule stating "these are guidelines, have fun".

Whether you like it or not, everything you just said is irrelevant and completely useless when discussing the explosion rule.

The fact that you keep saying "this is clear", "this is RaW", etc. just shows completely ignorance and some sort of desperation to win an internet debate. It is obviously not clear, and it is obviously not RaW, or else this wouldnt be on page 7. Im not one to flame people, but I can't believe how someone can completely ignore facts and say "Im right, youre wrong" when using rules that dont even apply! Its mind boggling.

I think FlingitNow may not understand RAW and RAI completely, but what he's saying isn't 100% complete Ballistic Skill

With the rules examples on page 66 and 79, it can now be argued RAW that any destroyed result on a vehicle (or a building), results in a forced disembark move.

The results on the wrecked and explodes table for effects on passengers don't spell out everything that must be done, only those things that alter the normal disembarkation rules, and the order they must be done. In the case of the explodes result, the passengers don't disembark before the vehicle is removed, so it is spelled out how they may be placed when you have no more access points to measure from.

Point in case, the wrecked result specifies after all passenger effects are resolved, the vehicle becomes a wreck. The Explodes result does not instruct you to remove the vehicle model, you have to go to the damage results table on pg. 61 and perform the actions listed there first. If the models have to disembark then they follow the disembarkation rules with the exceptions listed under the Results on Passenger table.

The explodes result doesn't mention disembarkation specifically, because in the order presented the vehicle is no longer on the table to disembark from. It isn't an exception to all the disembarkation rules, just a clarification when you have no access points to disembark from. If the entry was written to allow placement within an inch, it needed to be more specific. Do the models have to be placed inside the footprint of the exploded transport, or can they just be touching the footprint?

It doesn't mention vehicle removal either, except to refer where the models may be placed. You must follow page 61 results first.

The explodes result also doesn't spell out what happens to surviving passengers that don't fit in the space provided. You have to refer to pg. 13 to resolve that problem. Whenever something isn't spelled out completely, you must refer to the relevant rules section to resolve the problem.

Being forced to refer to rules on another page or in another section doesn't invalidate what must be done.

Krak_kirby wrote:With the rules examples on page 66 and 79, it can now be argued RAW that any destroyed result on a vehicle (or a building), results in a forced disembark move.

No, these say that the passengers MAY be forced to disembark if the transport is DESTROYED. We know that a wrecked result forces disembarkation. This satisfies both of the examples (one of which is irrelevant anyway). Applying it to more areas when it doesn't tell you to is wrong.

Krak_kirby wrote:Being forced to refer to rules on another page or in another section doesn't invalidate what must be done.

I never said this. The problem is when you apply rules that are not valid to begin with. What would you think of me if we were playing and I stopped you from moving because armor saves may not be taken against weapons that ignore armor?

Krak_kirby wrote:The explodes result also doesn't spell out what happens to surviving passengers that don't fit in the space provided. You have to refer to pg. 13 to resolve that problem. Whenever something isn't spelled out completely, you must refer to the relevant rules section to resolve the problem.

I have two issues with this:
1. What are these magical rules on page 13?
2. How are the disembarkation rules specifically relevant to exploding?

I've not been scared away, per se, but I recognise that there's no point in attempting to construct a logical argument, because FlingIt isn't willing to so much as consider other points of view, even when based on logic.

He's not only convinced that his way of doing things is right, he's also convinced that there are no other possible interpretations.

So -- unscared, but also unwilling to waste time making points that will just be ignored.

The line on page 66 does not read that "passengers MAY be forced to disembark if the transport is DESTROYED". The full sentence is this - " However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

"They may embark and be forced to disembark" is the exception to the rule preventing embarking and disembarking in the same player turn. "They MAY embark" is followed by "AND THEN be forced to disembark". That's basic sentence structure. The may refers to the embarking only.

And I never put any words in your mouth, thebetter1. Why do you accuse me of doing so?

The rule on page 13 that I was referring to is about impassable terrain, and that all models count as such. The point I was making was that the explodes result on passengers don't spell out every possible interaction with the rules. We have to reference other rules on other pages to resolve the explodes result and what happens to the passengers. This includes the embarking and disembarking rules, which are rules, even if they aren't in a little table or chart.

Krak_kirby wrote:
The rule on page 13 that I was referring to is about impassable terrain, and that all models count as such. The point I was making was that the explodes result on passengers don't spell out every possible interaction with the rules. We have to reference other rules on other pages to resolve the explodes result and what happens to the passengers. This includes the embarking and disembarking rules, which are rules, even if they aren't in a little table or chart.

The rule on page 13 places a restriction on placing models, and is specifically referenced through the invoking action of placing models. Using it as an example of why we should be using unreferenced or uninvoked rules (such as the specific disembarking action) is entirely wrong.

Krak_kirby wrote:
"They may embark and be forced to disembark" is the exception to the rule preventing embarking and disembarking in the same player turn. "They MAY embark" is followed by "AND THEN be forced to disembark". That's basic sentence structure. The may refers to the embarking only.

While that is a valid English reading of the sentence (as is the reading you are calling invalid...), even that reading still does not force all destroyed results to use disembarking. It is not a valid RAW support for changing the explodes rule.

The point I was making is that the explodes result under effects on passengers forces us to reference other rules, it is not complete in itself. It does not spell out what to do if the surviving passengers don't fit for placement. The rules on page 13 regarding impassable terrain tell us we can't stack our models to fit 20 orks in a space only 14 can fit in. If my opponent tries to do so, I can show him page 13.

As for the embarking and disembarking sentence, thebetter1 didn't have "may" in the proper place. In the context of the paragraph, "may" is being used as the exception to the rule against embarking and disembarking in the same player turn. If we establish RAW that any wrecked result forces disembarking, and that the text in the explodes result is clarification of passenger placement when no access points remain, then we continue to use any rules that apply to the situation.

Krak_kirby wrote:The point I was making is that the explodes result under effects on passengers forces us to reference other rules, it is not complete in itself. It does not spell out what to do if the surviving passengers don't fit for placement. The rules on page 13 regarding impassable terrain tell us we can't stack our models to fit 20 orks in a space only 14 can fit in. If my opponent tries to do so, I can show him page 13.

It forces you to refer to other rules governing the actions it invokes. It doesn't force you to refer to other pages for anything else.
The fact that it doesn't tell you what to do with unplacable models is indeed a clear omission, but no such general rule exists to refer to. That doesn't mean you can go off and include an unapplied outside rule, however.

Can any of the 1" rule supporters find any proof that you actually went through the process of disembarking? the 1" distance was broken once the enemy models assulted the tank. the members inside the tank (which is no longer there) have not MOVED within 1" of enemy models. they have always been there. there is no rule that states you cannot be within 1" of your apponent, the rule is that you cannot MOVE within 1" WITH OUT assulting that unit> the reason why models are destroyed if a 5 is rolled and the tank is surrounded is because the tank still exists requiring the unit to perform the action of disembarking following the disembarking rules. ie. leaving from access points.

basically you should not follow the disembark rules until some one can prove that the actual process of disembarking has been preformed. IMO

witchcore wrote:the reason why models are destroyed if a 5 is rolled and the tank is surrounded is because the tank still exists requiring the unit to perform the action of disembarking following the disembarking rules. ie. leaving from access points.

*and the wrecked result specifically adds the caveat that they are destroyed
Just to make that clear.

This isn't going anywhere... and since it's starting to get a little heated, I think it's time for everyone involved to give it a rest.