Here is the situation: a rhino is surrounded completely by models with 25mm bases. One inch is 25.4 mm.

The attacking models destroy the rhino with a "vehicle destroyed-wrecked" result.

By the rules, a model has to be placed within 2" of an access point in order to disembark, or if they cannot use an access point, they simply use the vehicle's hull. Since the attacking minis must be in base-contact with the vehicle, the area that models cannot disembark into because of enemy models ends slightly less than 2" from the vehicle's hull.

Because simply touching the 2" measurement from the disembark point (or hull) counts as being "within 2 inches" then models are mathematically capable of disembarking on the other side of the enemy models' bases.

This seems like a strange situation, however, and I don't think a lot of people would play it this way.

So, how will you play it?

Are the models destroyed, or are they allowed to disembark on the other side of the enemy's bases?

If i have to guess (this is a guess!!! cuz i dunno!)

i would place the occupants in the area where the rhino was. if the models dont fit , the left overs are count as dead.

LunaHound wrote:
If i have to guess (this is a guess!!! cuz i dunno!)

i would place the occupants in the area where the rhino was. if the models dont fit , the left overs are count as dead.

That's how a "vehicle destroyed- explodes!" is played out. If the vehicle is wrecked rather than exploded, the models disembark and the vehicle is left in play as terrain.

Option C:
Clearly, now would be a good time to debate such fine points as "How does one determine when a model is in base contact with a vehicle?", "Due to a manufacturing defect, is my opponent using 26mm bases?", "Are any of the measuring devices in use accurate to .05mm so that this can even be determined?", and "Why the are we playing each other?"

.4 mm is something that can be measured and seen by the eye.

If you're trying to say that disembarking would be unsportsmanlike...

Well I counter that refusing to play by the rules is unsportsmanlike.

This is one of those situations where I'd probably count my own models as destroyed, but I have actually allowed my opponent to disembark in a similar situation as well.

Following the rules is not unsportsmanlike behavior.

Oh, hai Guise!

I'm gonna have to say Destroyed, because you Must Disembark from the Transport FIRST, only Then does it become terrain, not before. And before it is terrain, it is a model, which cannot have another model occupying its personal space! (page 67: 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.)

Also, read the rules for disembarking again. They say: "Models cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy". This does NOT change in the Assault Phase, so even in the assault phase, if you cannot place the models within 2" of the hull AND 1" from models, they count as being unable to even emergency disembark (as the vehicle becomes a wreck only AFTER they disembark) and are destroyed.

Gwar! wrote:Oh, hai Guise!

I'm gonna have to say Destroyed, because you Must Disembark from the Transport FIRST, only Then does it become terrain, not before. And before it is terrain, it is a model, which cannot have another model occupying its personal space!

Also, read the rules for disembariking again. They say: "Models cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy". This does NOT change in the Assault Phase, so even in the assault phase, if you cannot place the models within 2" of the hull AND 1" from models, they count as being unable to even emergency disembark (as the vehicle becomes a wreck only AFTER they disembark) and are destroyed.

Hi, Gwar, I think you're misinterpreting things.

My first post is intended to show how you can disembark within 2" of the hull (I did not mention disembarking in the vehicle's space at all) but since a 25mm base is less than 1" wide, you can, legally, disembark on the other side of the enemy's bases.

While I realize the models aren't physcially moving from the vehicle to their disembark point, it's certainly implied. Since you cannot move through other models...

willydstyle wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Oh, hai Guise!

I'm gonna have to say Destroyed, because you Must Disembark from the Transport FIRST, only Then does it become terrain, not before. And before it is terrain, it is a model, which cannot have another model occupying its personal space!

Also, read the rules for disembariking again. They say: "Models cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy". This does NOT change in the Assault Phase, so even in the assault phase, if you cannot place the models within 2" of the hull AND 1" from models, they count as being unable to even emergency disembark (as the vehicle becomes a wreck only AFTER they disembark) and are destroyed.

Hi, Gwar, I think you're misinterpreting things.

My first post is intended to show how you can disembark within 2" of the hull (I did not mention disembarking in the vehicle's space at all) but since a 25mm base is less than 1" wide, you can, legally, disembark on the other side of the enemy's bases.

I remind you that in order to disembark legally, they must remain more than 1" away from any enemy models, as per page 67, and nothing changes this for the assault phase. 0.4mm is just a tiny bit less than 1", so they cannot disembark.

Willy, do you not understand the rules regarding minimum distance from enemy models?


You have to stay a least 1 " away unless you are assaulting.


So that only gives a .4 MM area to deploy. Hense they are destroyed.

A tiny bit less than 1" is still less than 1".

@Clthomps:

2" away from the hull will be 1" plus .4 mm away from the enemy models, if the attacking models have been placed correctly against the vehicle.

Gwar! wrote:Oh, hai Guise!

I'm gonna have to say Destroyed, because you Must Disembark from the Transport FIRST, only Then does it become terrain, not before. And before it is terrain, it is a model, which cannot have another model occupying its personal space! (page 67: 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.)

Also, read the rules for disembarking again. They say: "Models cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy". This does NOT change in the Assault Phase, so even in the assault phase, if you cannot place the models within 2" of the hull AND 1" from models, they count as being unable to even emergency disembark (as the vehicle becomes a wreck only AFTER they disembark) and are destroyed.

Yes, but hes saying since the rhino allows you to have a 2" placement zone around the rhino, and a single base isnt big enough to cover over an inch away from the hull, can you simply place them on the other side.

I personally think its silly for any army to lose a unit because their transport has been surrounded. I do play by that if theres no where to place my unit (its really my fault if that happens), but I have no problem "hopping" over them. It doesnt say they have to walk out.

From the edge of the hull, base + base is .8 mm less than 2"

willydstyle wrote:A tiny bit less than 1" is still less than 1".

Yes, it is Less than 1". Models may not Disembark within 1" of enemy models (page 67).

But the entirety of the disembarked troops base does not have to be within the 2" zone, as shown on the example on page 67.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:A tiny bit less than 1" is still less than 1".

Yes, it is Less than 1". Models may not Disembark within 1" of enemy models (page 67).

Exactly, so if you are exactly 2" away from the hull, you will be 1" plus .4 mm from the enemy model.

willydstyle wrote:But the entirety of the disembarked troops base does not have to be within the 2" zone, as shown on the example on page 67.

That is not the point I am making. You are correct in stating they do not have to be fully in the 2" zone. However, I assume that the vehicle is fully surrounded by enemies on 25mm bases. As such, when you place your model at the edge of the disembarking zone, they would be less than 1" away from an enemy model (0.3-0.4mm as you said.) As such, they cannot disembark, as per page 67, which does not change in the assault phase.

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:But the entirety of the disembarked troops base does not have to be within the 2" zone, as shown on the example on page 67.

That is not the point I am making. You are correct in stating they do not have to be fully in the 2" zone. However, I assume that the vehicle is fully surrounded by enemies on 25mm bases. As such, when you place your model at the edge of the disembarking zone, they would be less than 1" away from an enemy model (0.3-0.4mm as you said.) As such, they cannot disembark, as per page 67, which does not change in the assault phase.

No, they'd be more than one inch from the enemy model, since a base is less than one inch wide, not more.

Get the rulers !
wait i have one here , its exactly 1 inch diameter

willydstyle wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:But the entirety of the disembarked troops base does not have to be within the 2" zone, as shown on the example on page 67.

That is not the point I am making. You are correct in stating they do not have to be fully in the 2" zone. However, I assume that the vehicle is fully surrounded by enemies on 25mm bases. As such, when you place your model at the edge of the disembarking zone, they would be less than 1" away from an enemy model (0.3-0.4mm as you said.) As such, they cannot disembark, as per page 67, which does not change in the assault phase.

No, they'd be more than one inch from the enemy model, since a base is less than one inch wide, not more.

What? Look, i think we have gotten mixed up, let me draw a diagram.

As you can see, if a Transport is totally surrounded by 25mm bases, there is only a 0.4mm space to deploy, because deploying there would place the models within 1" of an enemy, they cannot disembark.

I was gonna use VASSAL but I haven't re-installed it yet, so M$ Paint will do

And I have a tape measure that shows me the base is slightly less than 1"... about half a millimeter less.

But Gwar, those blue bases are not two inches from the vehicle's hull, and those assaulting models are not "base to base" with the vehicle.

willydstyle wrote:And I have a tape measure that shows me the base is slightly less than 1"... about half a millimeter less.

It doesn't matter, in that case you are deploying 0.45mm away from an enemy, which you cannt do because Page 67 says you must disembark more than 1" from an enemy, which 0.45mm is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

willydstyle wrote:But Gwar, those blue bases are not two inches from the vehicle's hull, and those assaulting models are not "base to base" with the vehicle.

Pretend they are then, its the same, just imagine all the white space is gone. I made it in 7 seconds, but I shall get VASSAL installed ASAP to make a nice scale pic for you :3

Edit: Woops it seems GW shut down another fan project, oh well.

This pic isnt an emergency disembark either (only 2" from the door), so the roundness does not apply.

Thanks, night lords.

That is clearly less than 1" edge to edge though....

But anyway, it's on a case by case basis. If they get to be more than 1", go them, if not, they are killed.

But it's also not mathematically accurate, it just displays the concept.

2" from hull, minus .98" (25mm/25.4mm) is 1.02 inches, so you have .02 inches to disembark in. Also, the picture showed me that it's actually even easier to disembark more than one inch from enemy models, while still being within 2" of the hull, because the bases are round.

Gwar! wrote:That is clearly less than 1" edge to edge though....

Well, its not easy to tell. I dont feel like converting mm to inches myself to do the math but....the bases are less than 1" wide. lets says its 0.9". If I have two inches to work with, its 2-0.9 = 1.1".

Not only that, but the bases are round, so you can easily squeeze inbetween 2 round based units.

While you may be theoretically correct, things are never that accurate. your base might be a bit too big, things cannot actually be in base contact (there is always SOME empty space between them) and lets not forget the added distance the bevelled edge gives to the base width. But as I said, if you are able to get 1", then they can disembark fine, if not, they are destroyed. Look at it on a case by case basis is the only real way to do it.

The 25mm is measured across the bottom of the base.

Also, because of the tracked nature of most vehicles, "base to base" contact will mean that your base is a bit underneath the "hull" of the vehicle.

Again, I'll repeat that I won't play this way, but if my opponent insists on playing by the rules I would allow it.

Gwar! wrote:While you may be theoretically correct, things are never that accurate. your base might be a bit too big, things cannot actually be in base contact (there is always SOME empty space between them) and lets not forget the added distance the bevelled edge gives to the base width. But as I said, if you are able to get 1", then they can disembark fine, if not, they are destroyed. Look at it on a case by case basis is the only real way to do it.

Simple solution is to ask exactly which units are assaulting and count them up. If theyre attacking it, you can move a unit behind them. However, in the case of surrounding a vehicle with only one unit, you have to try to be in base to base anyways. I dont think its possible to be able to wrap around and completely surround it without being base to base.

While the rules technically allow them to disembark, I'm going with 'destroyed'


Nitpicking over .4 of a mm, while perfectly valid in a straight rules discussion, is a little over the top during an actual game.

Particularly since the bases measure slightly differently depending on your ruler, and on whether or not they have any flange of flash left on them.

Page 67 of the rulebook (emphasis mine):

"If the vehicle has already moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase."


To me, the use of the term "any further" clearly indicates that disembarking is a special form of movement (as moving more would be 'further' movement). Therefore disembarking follows all the normal restrictions for movement unless specified otherwise, including the inability to move through enemy models.

So I naturally voted that the disembarking models would be destroyed in this situation.

But, since bases are round, you can actually disembark within 2" and have a bit more comfortable distance from the bases of the assaulting infantry. If you place two bases right on a line, and then draw a 2" line perpendicular to the two bases, that extends from the original line through the point where the bases of the attacking models meet, then place a model at the end of that two inch line, you have a space between the attacking models and the disembarking models that is pretty comfortably outside of 1" from the models.

You have about 1/16" clearance.

willydstyle wrote:
You have about 1/16" clearance.

I really dont think GW made the rules expecting us to considerate that

Maybe I've done too much engineering and science work... but 1/16" is definitely something that's easily measurable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:
Page 67 of the rulebook (emphasis mine):

"If the vehicle has already moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase."


To me, the use of the term "any further" clearly indicates that disembarking is a special form of movement (as moving more would be 'further' movement). Therefore disembarking follows all the normal restrictions for movement unless specified otherwise, including the inability to move through enemy models.

So I naturally voted that the disembarking models would be destroyed in this situation.

But if you read the main rules for disembarking, it says "each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle's access points."

"Deployed" doesn't sound like "moved" to me.

To be honest, the strategy to completely surround a vehicle doesnt seem like one GW thought of in the first place. They talk as if this situation would be used if youre next to impassable terrain or if a few units were passing by and you simply couldnt get all your models out.

Otherwise they would have simply said "if all the hatches are occupied by enemy models, the model inside is destroyed".

Night Lords wrote:To be honest, the strategy to completely surround a vehicle doesnt seem like one GW thought of in the first place. They talk as if this situation would be used if youre next to impassable terrain or if a few units were passing by and you simply couldnt get all your models out.

Otherwise they would have simply said "if all the hatches are occupied by enemy models, the model inside is destroyed".

It's also something that I almost never see in real play. Some players do like to block hatches and expect units to be destroyed, though.

willydstyle wrote:

Night Lords wrote:To be honest, the strategy to completely surround a vehicle doesnt seem like one GW thought of in the first place. They talk as if this situation would be used if youre next to impassable terrain or if a few units were passing by and you simply couldnt get all your models out.

Otherwise they would have simply said "if all the hatches are occupied by enemy models, the model inside is destroyed".

It's also something that I almost never see in real play. Some players do like to block hatches and expect units to be destroyed, though.

My friend does it to me all the time when I hide inside a rhino from his banshees (which came out of the impossible to kill wave serpent). Luckily Ive survived their wrath in CC thanks to his cruddy rolling haha.

Night Lords wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Night Lords wrote:To be honest, the strategy to completely surround a vehicle doesnt seem like one GW thought of in the first place. They talk as if this situation would be used if youre next to impassable terrain or if a few units were passing by and you simply couldnt get all your models out.

Otherwise they would have simply said "if all the hatches are occupied by enemy models, the model inside is destroyed".

It's also something that I almost never see in real play. Some players do like to block hatches and expect units to be destroyed, though.

My friend does it to me all the time when I hide inside a rhino from his banshees (which came out of the impossible to kill wave serpent). Luckily Ive survived their wrath in CC thanks to his cruddy rolling haha.

Well... also, the only model in the banshee squad that has a chance of hurting the rhino is the exarch, and then only if she has an executioner.

yakface wrote:
Page 67 of the rulebook (emphasis mine):

"If the vehicle has already moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase."


To me, the use of the term "any further" clearly indicates that disembarking is a special form of movement (as moving more would be 'further' movement). Therefore disembarking follows all the normal restrictions for movement unless specified otherwise, including the inability to move through enemy models.

So I naturally voted that the disembarking models would be destroyed in this situation.

But if you read the main rules for disembarking, it says "each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle's access points."

"Deployed" doesn't sound like "moved" to me.

How is this conversation still going on?

Pg 67. BGRB

... When a unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2' ...

Within
1. in or into the interior or inner part; inside.
2. on, or as regards, the inside; internally.
3. in or into the interior of or the parts or space enclosed by: within city walls.
4. inside of; in.
5. in the compass or limits of; not beyond: within view; to live within one's income.


So unless your marines are on .4mm bases (with the opponents permission of course ) They are destroyed.




In this image the SM are deployed illegally since they are not within the 2' bubble.

Clthomps wrote:In this image the SM are deployed illegally since they are not within the 2' bubble.

The entire model doesn't have to be within 2". There just needs to be 2" or less between the vehicle and the closest edge of the model's base.

Check the diagram on page 67.

Except the picture on page 67 shows that GW clearly has a different in-game definition for what "within" means.

I always assumed that model was not part the of the disembarking unit. Zoom in real close and you can see that the grey bubble ends before the base of the marine in question.

And at any rate if this is a debate on pure RAW then as written the whole model must be within the 2" bubble.



Also I feel Yakface has a good point.

Yakface
"As I pointed out, it says that moving the models after disembarking counts as mov[ing] them further. They are absolutely moving when being deployed, it is just a special type of movement with additional restrictions, but it is still movement."

What I see is... the models count has having moved because the vehicle moved. Disembarkation sounds like to me is a special form of deployment; deployment is what we do at the beginning of the game and it doesn't count as moving, as you are "placing" your models. However disembarking has additional restrictions, mainly on your shooting, but also if the vehicle moved, you lose your movement. I'm reading both bullets points on pg67 and a little bit on pg 66.

Clthomps wrote:I always assumed that model was not part the of the disembarking unit.

The caption does refer to all of the Space Marines.

Zoom in real close and you can see that the grey bubble ends before the base of the marine in question.

Looks to be touching his base to me.

And at any rate if this is a debate on pure RAW then as written the whole model must be within the 2" bubble.

RAW requires no such thing.

In order to determine the distance between two objects, you measure between the closest points of the two things in question. That's not only how you would do it normally, it's what the rules say to do. (Page 4)

So to determine whether one thing is within 2" of another, you measure from the closest point of the first thing to the closest point of the second. In this particular case, that means from the closest point on the vehicle's hull to the closest point of the model's base.

The whole model does not need to be within 2" because the rules don't state that the whole model needs to be within 2".

So the rules state that they simply have to be within 2". The diagram provided backs this up. So the RAW is very definitely not that the whole model needs to be within 2".

The capture under the diagram says that "all of the space marines have disembarked within 2" of the thransport's access points."

The one at the edge of the bubble is one of the space marines, and several of the other ones have their bases partially within the 2" bubbles and partially out.

Yakface's point is based on an implication.

The paragraph after the one he quotes says that if the vehicle has not moved, then the passengers may disembark and move normally. This implies that disembarking is not movement just as much as Yakface's quote implies that the disembark is movement.

The real question on that image is how to you get from the vehicle to the other side of the enemy models? TELEPORT? You cannot pass within 1 inch of enemy models. In that case you are violating that rule. You can only do that during an assault. Even if you played this way you may be able to "save" two models at best.

smart_alex wrote: You cannot pass within 1 inch of enemy models. In that case you are violating that rule.

Only if you agree that disembarking counts as moving.

insaniak wrote:

smart_alex wrote: You cannot pass within 1 inch of enemy models. In that case you are violating that rule.

Only if you agree that disembarking counts as moving.

Which, while I agree with Yakface is implied, it is certainly not concretely written in the rules.

Logically (a word I am loathe to use in an abstracted game system), the reason for having the 1 inch minimum distance to deploy is that as you leave a vehicle, you are vulnerable to attack.

Getting out of a tank whilst surrounded by guants/orks/anything would be suicided. If your tank is destroyed and you must disembark - sorry, youre dead. Unit destroyed.

I do have a question tho - deployment from the exit hatches is 2 inches - can you disembark on top of the destroyed tank? Sure, you take a dangerous terrain test, but its better than 'obliterated'! Also, if youre tank is in ruins and the second level is within 2 inches - can you disembark upwards?

darkkt wrote:Logically (a word I am loathe to use in an abstracted game system), the reason for having the 1 inch minimum distance to deploy is that as you leave a vehicle, you are vulnerable to attack.

Getting out of a tank whilst surrounded by guants/orks/anything would be suicided. If your tank is destroyed and you must disembark - sorry, youre dead. Unit destroyed.

I do have a question tho - deployment from the exit hatches is 2 inches - can you disembark on top of the destroyed tank? Sure, you take a dangerous terrain test, but its better than 'obliterated'! Also, if youre tank is in ruins and the second level is within 2 inches - can you disembark upwards?

The sequence of events for a "vehicle destroyed-wrecked" result is very specific:

You disembark the unit, then the vehicle counts as a wreck, in that order. Because of that you cannot disembark on top of the wrecked vehicle.

LunaHound wrote:Get the rulers !
wait i have one here , its exactly 1 inch diameter

Then I'm afraid you're using non-standard bases, and as such I have the right to object, as per pg.3 of the BGB.

willydstyle wrote:The capture under the diagram says that "all of the space marines have disembarked within 2" of the thransport's access points."

The one at the edge of the bubble is one of the space marines, and several of the other ones have their bases partially within the 2" bubbles and partially out.

Yakface's point is based on an implication.

The paragraph after the one he quotes says that if the vehicle has not moved, then the passengers may disembark and move normally. This implies that disembarking is not movement just as much as Yakface's quote implies that the disembark is movement.

Completely incorrect.

Not all movement is normal movement. Disembarking is movement, as I have shown, this is not implication. Deep Striking is similarly described as being movement. Running is movement. Assaulting is movement. None of these are "normal" movement per se, but they are all still movement and therefore still follow the basic restrictions for moving.


You created a poll to find out how/why people play an issue, and that is my personal take on it. I see the rules as clearly prohibiting models from disembarking through enemy models surrounding their vehicle.

I have never done this in a game.

However, I voted that they could be placed on the other side. My rational was that the models are "placed" when they disembark. Because they are "placed" and not actually moved, there is no instance where they move through enemy models. As such, there is nothing illegal about the placement so long as it is within 2" of the hull and more than 1" from the enemy models.

insaniak wrote:While the rules technically allow them to disembark, I'm going with 'destroyed'


Nitpicking over .4 of a mm, while perfectly valid in a straight rules discussion, is a little over the top during an actual game.

Particularly since the bases measure slightly differently depending on your ruler, and on whether or not they have any flange of flash left on them.

I wonder, out of interest, do you apply the same stance to infiltrating melee units (if they are out of line of sight they have to be just over 12" away) would they be allowed to assault? Just curious, not trying to say something about you.

Regarding this Issue I agree with Yakface, you can't move through an enemy unit even when disembarking because it is still a movement and follows the normal movement rules except where otherwhise noted.


Also, lol @ all the distance confusion on the first page, I'm sure it's been cleared up by now but.

base = 25mm = 0.984 inches
disembark range = 50.8mm = 2 inches
difference = 25.8mm = 1.016 inches

sure it's small, but people on that first page seemed to think 2 inches was 25.4mm

willydstyle wrote:

Night Lords wrote:To be honest, the strategy to completely surround a vehicle doesnt seem like one GW thought of in the first place. They talk as if this situation would be used if youre next to impassable terrain or if a few units were passing by and you simply couldnt get all your models out.

Otherwise they would have simply said "if all the hatches are occupied by enemy models, the model inside is destroyed".

It's also something that I almost never see in real play. Some players do like to block hatches and expect units to be destroyed, though.

happens all the time with snikrot.

To clear up this storm, me and my opponents always say that if models are over the troop hatches then models in transports can't get out.

Invent fluff like they welded the doors shut, or that they're shooting into the hatches.

I'd never even consider this as a possibility. Good call though, it'd just never fly with my gaming group :(

Tek wrote:To clear up this shitstorm, me and my opponents always say that if models are over the troop hatches then models in transports can't get out.

Invent fluff like they welded the doors shut, or that they're shooting into the hatches.

I'd never even consider this as a possibility. Good call though, it'd just never fly with my gaming group :(

That's an interesting solution given there are specific rules for disembarking when the hatches are blocked.

Tek wrote:To clear up this shitstorm, me and my opponents always say that if models are over the troop hatches then models in transports can't get out.

Invent fluff like they welded the doors shut, or that they're shooting into the hatches.

I'd never even consider this as a possibility. Good call though, it'd just never fly with my gaming group :(

Why would your house rules clear anything up? Also, the emergency disembark rules are written specifically for when the hatches are covered. In order to be able to destroy an embarked unit by killing the vehicle, you have to completely surround it, anything less won't work.

I play it as Destoyed

Most play it as Destoyed

I hate it but give up the good fight.. i think this rule sucks a fat one personally

Why "give up the good fight?"

These threads usually start as such:

I represent a rule, and the situations in which it does not cooperate with how many players actually play the game.

A bunch of people say "oh but the rules say this"

I say "sorry, you're wrong, the rules say what I originally posted."

So far Yakface has brought up a good point, but one which I don't think is 100% concrete. The rules imply that the disembarking may be movement. They do not explicitly say "this follows all the same rules as movement."

Eventually we get past all that to have an actual discussion about how people actually play the game.

Clthomps wrote:Willy, do you not understand the rules regarding minimum distance from enemy models?


You have to stay a least 1 " away unless you are assaulting.


So that only gives a .4 MM area to deploy. Hense they are destroyed.

Exactly. This is a time honored tactic against guard in chimeras and the occasional rhino.

Frazzled wrote:

Clthomps wrote:Willy, do you not understand the rules regarding minimum distance from enemy models?


You have to stay a least 1 " away unless you are assaulting.


So that only gives a .4 MM area to deploy. Hense they are destroyed.

Exactly. This is a time honored tactic against guard in chimeras and the occasional rhino.

Read the whole thread, please. Clthomps is wrong because of math.

Night Lords wrote:To be honest, the strategy to completely surround a vehicle doesnt seem like one GW thought of in the first place. They talk as if this situation would be used if youre next to impassable terrain or if a few units were passing by and you simply couldnt get all your models out.

Otherwise they would have simply said "if all the hatches are occupied by enemy models, the model inside is destroyed".

respectfully, its a tactic thats been done since at least 3rd edition, when it was done to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

willydstyle wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Clthomps wrote:Willy, do you not understand the rules regarding minimum distance from enemy models?


You have to stay a least 1 " away unless you are assaulting.


So that only gives a .4 MM area to deploy. Hense they are destroyed.

Exactly. This is a time honored tactic against guard in chimeras and the occasional rhino.

Read the whole thread, please. Clthomps is wrong because of math.

Sorry, you're arguing forced deployment is not movement. I don't hold to that, as I cannot think of an instance where movement doesn't count as some form of movement. Therefore you can move through the opposing mini's 1in dead zone, therefore the secondary 2in argument is irrelevant.

If the model has to be within 2", could you have a really long tentacle that was within 2" but have the base outside of 2", maybe comfortably 10" away? I'm curious if they define model as it's base, and I dun have the rules with me here at work.

Because the rules for the disembarking don't say that you move the models 2" from the hatch, they say to "deploy" 2" from the hatch, or in the case of an emergency disembark, anywhere within 2" of the hull, as shown on the diagram that shows that "within" also includes having the base merely touching the 2" zone.

The difficulty of course is that I don't subscribe to your theory that deployment in this instance is not a form of movement. I've not seen the counterargument having weight sufficient to overcome Yakface's analysis. It further contravenes common practice through several editions wherein blocked hatches where an effective means of blocking this movement. The weight of the evidence is upon your side to prove the case.

(edited for spelling)

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If the model has to be within 2", could you have a really long tentacle that was within 2" but have the base outside of 2", maybe comfortably 10" away?

No. All measurement to and from a model uses its base. Page 3: "Measuring Distances"

Drunkspleen wrote:I wonder, out of interest, do you apply the same stance to infiltrating melee units (if they are out of line of sight they have to be just over 12" away) would they be allowed to assault? Just curious, not trying to say something about you.

Here's the approach that's been used by the people I've regularly gamed with over the last 15 years or so:
- Set up following all the stated rules.
- Make an effort to measure movement reasonably accurately.
- Don't sweat the small stuff.

If a model winds up a millimeter out of assault range, we would generally allow the assault. Exactly how close is close enough would depend on the specific situation, (and quite possibly on whether it's funnier at the time to not allow it).

But having said that, the guys I generally game with, if told to deploy 'more than 12" away' from something, wouldn't be trying to deploy 12.0001" away to squeeze in an assault. There would usually be at least a half inch or more, and knowing that you're out of first-turn assault range, we wouldn't be trying to assault that turn in the first place.

They're dead. The whole argument hinges on "deploy" versus "move".

If deploying from a transport were movement, it would say to "move the models 2" from the access point." Which it does not say, and in fact if that were the intention of the disembarking rules, then the example picture shown would not be possible, as all of the bases would have to be completely within the 2" "bubble."

The one line that says "may move no further that turn" is the only line that even implies that disembarking is movement. The actual rule for disembarking simply says you "deploy" the models.

willydstyle wrote:If deploying from a transport were movement, it would say to "move the models 2" from the access point." Which it does not say, and in fact if that were the intention of the disembarking rules, then the example picture shown would not be possible, as all of the bases would have to be completely within the 2" "bubble."

The one line that says "may move no further that turn" is the only line that even implies that disembarking is movement. The actual rule for disembarking simply says you "deploy" the models.

Just saying that I agree with this interpretation.

If I'm not mistaken, the only thing dictating that a DSing model shoots as though he has moved that turn is the exact same language. I'll have to look it up to verify :p

Yea, i guess theres a tiiiiiinnny margin of space you can occupy ... unless its me doing it and i pile 30 boyz 2 deep around your rhino .... what then hehe.

I think if someone was going to be dick enough to pull the surround in the first place I'd be dick enough to play it RAW, unit can emergency disembark at the edge of the disembark bubble. Maybe I'm a spoiled friendly gamer, but if you're going down those roads you really do have to be willing to walk where they take you.

willydstyle wrote:No, they'd be more than one inch from the enemy model, since a base is less than one inch wide, not more.

Yeah yeah if ALL the models that surround the vehicle are glued with their feet to the transport you can place something within 2" of the rhino also the gap if bigger than 0.8 mm since bases are round they leave places where you have more then 0.8 to work with. That is not the issue, this is:
It still doesn't allow you to move/disembark through the unit.

EDIT: opps, should have read the third page first - this was a reply to the poster at the end of the second page saying he/she/it thought the rule sucked. Back to your original programming...


Why? Because you failed at keeping your loaded transport from being surrounded and the opponent kills both units?

Heck, it was easier in previous editions because there was no "emergency disembark."

And yes, I play it as destroyed also.

further edit:

I think if someone was going to be dick enough to pull the surround in the first place I'd be dick enough to play it RAW, unit can emergency disembark at the edge of the disembark bubble. Maybe I'm a spoiled friendly gamer, but if you're going down those roads you really do have to be willing to walk where they take you.

I don't get it. Why is that a dick move? I mostly play friendly games - if I'm dumb enough to allow my transport to be surrounded, I deserve for it to get destroyed and lose the unit inside. Or do you think it's "friendly" and "fair" for say a unit of guardsmen to surround a LR loaded with termies, melta the LR and then stand there and get slaughtered by the termies the following round?

Yeah I don't see a scenario where this won't get a person labeled as TFG. Poor general skills allowed a vehicle to be completely surrounded. Instead of taking the player's punches like a good sport the player is going to try and exploit a rule to such an extent that we need to interpret the difference between deployment and movement to see whether the player can move through the enemies models. Also the player needs to measure to an absurd level to use this exploit in the first place. This would make the player pretty unpopular in my neck of the woods. I'm just saying this is a very thin arguement.

Why is surrounding a vehicle a dick move? A thirty model ork unit is going to do that alot. I don't think this is any different from a sweeping advance in the sense that the unit is defenseless and destroyed because of it.

*Update for spelling*

phillosmaster wrote:Yeah I don't see a scenario where this won't get a person labeled as TFG. Poor general skills allowed a vehicle to be completely surrounded. Instead of taking the player's punches like a good sport the player is going to try and exploit a rule to such an extent that we need to interpret the difference between deployment and movement to see whether the player can move through the enemies models. Also the player needs to measure to an absurd level to use this exploit in the first place. This would make the player pretty unpopular in my neck of the woods. I'm just saying this is a very thin arguement.

Why is surrounding a vehicle a dick move? A thirty model ork unit is going to do that alot. I don't think this is any different from a sweeping advance in the sense that the unit is defenseless and destroyed because of it.

QFT. If you managed to get yourself surrounded and wrecked take it like a man. You lost that one. Suck it up.

liquiddark wrote:I think if someone was going to be dick enough to pull the surround in the first place I'd be dick enough to play it RAW, unit can emergency disembark at the edge of the disembark bubble. Maybe I'm a spoiled friendly gamer, but if you're going down those roads you really do have to be willing to walk where they take you.

Why is that a Dick move? Its hard as heck to do. Its a time honored traditional move. Whats the problem?
Edit: er what green git said.

its defiently destroyed

I concur with Yakface.

I will agree with the OP that it could most certainly be clearer, but I feel that the wording suffices to define disembarkation as a subset of movement, to the point in which hurdling a ring of surrounding attackers seems absurd and perverse.

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:That is clearly less than 1" edge to edge though....

Well, its not easy to tell. I dont feel like converting mm to inches myself to do the math but....the bases are less than 1" wide. lets says its 0.9". If I have two inches to work with, its 2-0.9 = 1.1".

Not only that, but the bases are round, so you can easily squeeze inbetween 2 round based units.

Basic conversion is 1" = 2.54cm = 25.4mm. So the basic premise that models can be 2" or less from the hull of the vehicle, and 1" or more away from surrounding models, is correct. Assuming all the surrounding models are flush against the hull.

so you're saying that if you want to kill the unit, you need to have some models not exactly base to base with the tank

frgsinwntr wrote:so you're saying that if you want to kill the unit, you need to have some models not exactly base to base with the tank

You must have them in b-t-b if possible, but if you can pile them two deep then you can prevent it.*

*Note: I do not actually play the game this way

yakface wrote:

yakface wrote:
Page 67 of the rulebook (emphasis mine):

"If the vehicle has already moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase."


To me, the use of the term "any further" clearly indicates that disembarking is a special form of movement (as moving more would be 'further' movement). Therefore disembarking follows all the normal restrictions for movement unless specified otherwise, including the inability to move through enemy models.

So I naturally voted that the disembarking models would be destroyed in this situation.

But if you read the main rules for disembarking, it says "each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle's access points."

"Deployed" doesn't sound like "moved" to me.

As I pointed out, it says that moving the models after disembarking counts as mov[ing] them further. They are absolutely moving when being deployed, it is just a special type of movement with additional restrictions, but it is still movement.

@Augustus: good job repeating what's been said and shown to be questionable (or wrong).

Night Lords example is exactly correct as shown in the example of disembarking space marines in the rule book.

So you are saying that your disembarking models need not deploy within 2 inches of the vehicle? They may disembark a little over 2 inches as long as some part of their base is within 2 inches?

I think that arguement is dead wrong. I think the entire base of the models must stay within that 2 inch bubble of the disembarkation point, just as when deploying troops at the start of the game their entire base must be within the given distance to the board edge.

augustus5 wrote:So you are saying that your disembarking models need not deploy within 2 inches of the vehicle? They may disembark a little over 2 inches as long as some part of their base is within 2 inches?

I think that arguement is dead wrong. I think the entire base of the models must stay within that 2 inch bubble of the disembarkation point, just as when deploying troops at the start of the game their entire base must be within the given distance to the board edge.

Well, I KNOW that argument is dead right. Page 67 BRB.
You are looking for this diagram:

augustus5 wrote:So you are saying that your disembarking models need not deploy within 2 inches of the vehicle?

No, he's saying that your interpretation of what constitutes 'within' is incorrect. And already discussed earlier in the thread.

insaniak wrote:

augustus5 wrote:So you are saying that your disembarking models need not deploy within 2 inches of the vehicle?

No, he's saying that your interpretation of what constitutes 'within' is incorrect. And already discussed earlier in the thread.

Yes, reading the whole thread is full of win.

yakface wrote:
Page 67 of the rulebook (emphasis mine):

"If the vehicle has already moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase."


To me, the use of the term "any further" clearly indicates that disembarking is a special form of movement (as moving more would be 'further' movement). Therefore disembarking follows all the normal restrictions for movement unless specified otherwise, including the inability to move through enemy models.

So I naturally voted that the disembarking models would be destroyed in this situation.

I don't agree with your conclusion about disembarking being movement. The "any further" just means you cannot move them anymore because they already moved together with the vehicle.

The paragraph about disembarking from a vehicle that has not moved also contradicts your logic. You can never move a unit twice in the same phase, yet it's allowed to move normally after disembarking from a vehicle that has not moved during that phase. If disembarking was movent that would not be possible.

budro wrote:
I don't get it. Why is that a dick move? I mostly play friendly games - if I'm dumb enough to allow my transport to be surrounded, I deserve for it to get destroyed and lose the unit inside. Or do you think it's "friendly" and "fair" for say a unit of guardsmen to surround a LR loaded with termies, melta the LR and then stand there and get slaughtered by the termies the following round?

In what universe should guardsmen be able to prevent a terminator from going where ever he wants? Terminators literally laugh off the bulk of the guard squad's firepower. That doesn't require much interpretation - it is what they're frickin built for. It's using a game rule (preventing normal movement) to an end that is completely outside of the normal bounds of possibility (blowing up anything with anything else regardless of relative strength/toughness). It may be a long established tradition amongst some gamers, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense, particularly when you're looking at an emergency disembark where it's not following ANY of the normal rules for the situation - people are moving through the walls of the transport as if by magic.

Consider: What's actually happening during an emergency disembark? I believe that the troops aren't exiting the vehicle via the normal access points, they're blowing big holes in it from the inside and getting the hell out. Do you, ork grunt or vanilla Guardsman want to stand on the far side of a steel plate while it's exploding out towards you? I think that there's more than enough confusion and explosives involved in that effort to adequately explain what happened. People get stuck in the trap of thinking a close combat situation is a static moment on the field - it's not. The guys outside the transport are terribly vulnerable to the firepower used by those exiting the thing. It's enough of a job to avoid losing people without having to stand in front of a berserk marine or what have you. The force used to exit the vehicle adequately explains both why they can bypass the surrounding unit (unless it's piled several guys deep, I'm not saying that doesn't still apply, there are limits to the damage you can wreak here), and why they can't do anything after they exit - they need to recharge/rearm before they're combat-ready again.

I just think it's a shady rule, and regardless if its been happening since 3rd edition, I dont think GW really pays attention to it.

On top of what the above post said, this only happens on the result of a 5. On a 6 the vehicle explodes and you can easily place all your guys down. The people arguing about welding doors shut, putting guns into the vehicle and firing in, etc. You really think when the vehicle youre in EXPLODES that youre more likely to survive than if the vehicle stops moving?

The simple solution would be to allow your guys to stand on top of the wreckage, which is what Id think theyd do anyways.

Note: Im not saying this is how the rules work.

The crazy part about this argument is that the troops inside the vehicle, when you consider the situation outside the confines of the game, could almost certainly choose to cause the vehicle to explode at any time, at which point they'd be good to go for disembarking. How, I ask you, does that make any sense?

liquiddark wrote:
Consider: What's actually happening during an emergency disembark? I believe that the troops aren't exiting the vehicle via the normal access points, they're blowing big holes in it from the inside and getting the hell out. Do you, ork grunt or vanilla Guardsman want to stand on the far side of a steel plate while it's exploding out towards you? I think that there's more than enough confusion and explosives involved in that effort to adequately explain what happened. People get stuck in the trap of thinking a close combat situation is a static moment on the field - it's not. The guys outside the transport are terribly vulnerable to the firepower used by those exiting the thing. It's enough of a job to avoid losing people without having to stand in front of a berserk marine or what have you. The force used to exit the vehicle adequately explains both why they can bypass the surrounding unit (unless it's piled several guys deep, I'm not saying that doesn't still apply, there are limits to the damage you can wreak here), and why they can't do anything after they exit - they need to recharge/rearm before they're combat-ready again.

then consider the opposite, when you instead have a chimera with Guard inside and space marines on the outside.
based on this description how would the Guard escape the Marines?

And so they wouldn't - they're paralyzed for an entire turn. You turn and mow them down when your opportunity rolls around, which is not a terribly difficult sacrifice to make.

but based off of one scenario (destroyed in the transport) that's one turn of shooting/assault for at least one unit that could be used for something more productive

as opposed to the other scenario (units get out; emergency disembark; get pinned for the ED; and sit around)

Realism isn't generally a good basis for rules debates. That said, the concept being simulated is sound, and well-grounded in reality.

If you have a burning, about to explode personnel carrier completely surrounded by armed men, and the passengers have to make an emergency disembarkation, they will be functionally helpless and ripe for slaughter by the surrounding unit. While the general situation may break down a little in specific situations (like grots slaughtering Terminators), the general idea is absolutely legitimate.

About guys being pinned "until the end of the turn," p. 9 of the rulebook it defines "the turn" as the Player turn unless it says specifically game turn. The emergency disembarkation says "can't do anything for the rest of the turn." (p. 67) Therefore if it's your turn and you have all my rhino hatches surrounded and I emergency disembark out the front, I can move, shoot, etc. next turn unless someone can prove otherwise.

Edit: P. 95 also uses the same language of "can not move any further" in relation to DSing. It goes on to say how they shoot, "obviously counting as having moved in the previous movement phase." Do with that knowledge what you will.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:About guys being pinned "until the end of the turn," p. 9 of the rulebook it defines "the turn" as the Player turn unless it says specifically game turn. The emergency disembarkation says "can't do anything for the rest of the turn." (p. 67) Therefore if it's your turn and you have all my rhino hatches surrounded and I emergency disembark out the front, I can move, shoot, etc. next turn unless someone can prove otherwise.

This is correct.

well, your pinned unit stays pinned until the end of "your" turn.

and it wasn't "your" turn when "your unit" got pinned from the ED.

Pg. 2 of the 40K errata and FAQ
Q. If models disembark from a transport into
dangerous terrain, do they take a dangerous
terrain test? Unlike Pile-in or Consolidation
moves, disembarking does not specifically states
that it doesn't trigger dangerous terrain tests.
A. Dangerous terrain says you test for every
model that has 'entered, left or moved through'
the terrain. As there is no exception in the text,
disembarking models do have to test. However, if
they disembark at the beginning of their move
and then move after the disembarkation, only one
test is needed, not two.

If you had a land raider and you pushed it on top of a barbed wire fence (dangerous terrain) and then had the unit inside deploy on the other side of the fence would you say they have to take the difficult and dangerous terrain tests or not?

If any of you say they would have to since they ARE moving THROUGH it.. .then in the instance of emergency deployment here no one could escape since, for the purposes of movement, not only do you have to stay 1" away, but models are considered impassable terrain.

So.. answer the question people. Are the same people wanting this freebie escape also going to ninja over the fence?

I say Jack doesn't jump over this hill, this deployment is epic fail.

The Dragon wrote:If you had a land raider and you pushed it on top of a barbed wire fence (dangerous terrain) and then had the unit inside deploy on the other side of the fence would you say they have to take the difficult and dangerous terrain tests or not?

If any of you say they would have to since they ARE moving THROUGH it.. .then in the instance of emergency deployment here no one could escape since, for the purposes of movement, not only do you have to stay 1" away, but models are considered impassable terrain.

I'm confused. How are they moving through the fence if the Land Raider is sitting on top of it?

A couple of points here -
1. Why attempt to win by nerfing and rules lawyers your way through a game. Fight it out and have fun by BS, S vs T and Save!
2. The rules are not written well. They are not written a congruent fashion and the plain English that was used conveys meaning in unintended ways. Refer to point 1.
3. Have you ever been in the quandary where you are the first car at a red light and you have cars to the left and right of you... an ambulance or police car comes up siren wailing behind you and they are coming fast. You now have a choice - Do you hold your ground knowing that you are behind the red light and unable to move left or right? Do you move forward, breaking the law of moving ahead of a red light and risk life and limb by entering the intersection. Or do you just claim you have been destroyed surrounded by the moral and legal enigma of what to do?

The attempted abuse of the rules occurring here is for people to claim that 25mm bases != 1 inch diameter.

Which is technically correct. However, for the remainder of the game I would ensure that my opponent measured all of his ranges with range-finder lasers, just to make sure he got it right.

I thought they end up on top of the wrecked rhino? 'Emergency Disembarkation' is what it's called, no?

willydstyle wrote:Here is the situation: a rhino is surrounded completely by models with 25mm bases. One inch is 25.4 mm.

The attacking models destroy the rhino with a "vehicle destroyed-wrecked" result.

By the rules, a model has to be placed within 2" of an access point in order to disembark, or if they cannot use an access point, they simply use the vehicle's hull. Since the attacking minis must be in base-contact with the vehicle, the area that models cannot disembark into because of enemy models ends slightly less than 2" from the vehicle's hull.

Because simply touching the 2" measurement from the disembark point (or hull) counts as being "within 2 inches" then models are mathematically capable of disembarking on the other side of the enemy models' bases.

This seems like a strange situation, however, and I don't think a lot of people would play it this way.

So, how will you play it?

Are the models destroyed, or are they allowed to disembark on the other side of the enemy's bases?

If I were TO, I would go for destroyed. I see what you're saying about disembarking on the other side of the models... but the poorly written rules, I think, were meant to create a condition where the models would be destroyed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
wait... um...

is what I posted an example of RAI?

Trasvi wrote:The attempted abuse of the rules occurring here is for people to claim that 25mm bases != 1 inch diameter.

Which is technically correct. However, for the remainder of the game I would ensure that my opponent measured all of his ranges with range-finder lasers, just to make sure he got it right.

I agree, it is a particularly bad idea to mix metric and english units. Remember the Mars Climate Orbiter?

ceddyn wrote:
I don't agree with your conclusion about disembarking being movement. The "any further" just means you cannot move them anymore because they already moved together with the vehicle.

The paragraph about disembarking from a vehicle that has not moved also contradicts your logic. You can never move a unit twice in the same phase, yet it's allowed to move normally after disembarking from a vehicle that has not moved during that phase. If disembarking was movent that would not be possible.

That's what "further" means. It means the unit had to have already done some sort of movement to be able to not move any "further".

There is absolutely no rule which prevents a unit from moving twice in the same phase. . .only what is allowed by normal movement. Deployment from a vehicle is not normal movement and the disembarking rules explain that the unit is allowed to disembark and then additionally make its normal move, so it can.

Just as if a unit had a special rule that allowed it to move twice in the movement phase, it would then be allowed to.

The fact is, the use of the word "further" absolutely indicates that a disembarking unit has indeed "moved."

What I should have said for the LR was that it had moved right up to the fence. I meant that the fence was directly in front of the front hatch, flush against the vehicle. Thus, to deploy would necessitate moving through both dangerous and difficult terrain in that instance.

I feel that overall, in this entire argument, the point of distances, base width, etc. is all utterly pointless since none of the attempted escapees can move through or over the models directly surrounding the vehicle anyway.

Really, that's as far as the discussion should've gone IF we're dealing with the full-coverage worst case scenario forced-disembark that was theorized at the beginning.

BTW, about the discussion on whether disembarking is really a 'move' or not? Check the FAQ I posted earlier it says that the unit models have to take the test. Guess What people? You only have to take the test when you MOVE into dangerous/difficult terrain. Thus, once again-- there is no debate here-- you cannot move through enemy models in a disembarkment to get to the space on their other side.

The safe disembark is a lie: The unit is dead: The Move is made of Epic Fail.

The Dragon wrote:What I should have said for the LR was that it had moved right up to the fence. I meant that the fence was directly in front of the front hatch, flush against the vehicle. Thus, to deploy would necessitate moving through both dangerous and difficult terrain in that instance.

If only the actual fence is dangerous terrain, you're going to get the same answer as you would get for the thread's original question.

I feel that overall, in this entire argument, the point of distances, base width, etc. is all utterly pointless since none of the attempted escapees can move through or over the models directly surrounding the vehicle anyway.

Really, that's as far as the discussion should've gone IF we're dealing with the full-coverage worst case scenario forced-disembark that was theorized at the beginning.

That really just comes down to the sort of game you're playing. Some people like to play the game as a sort of simulation, where the rules can be bent or ignored if playing it differently makes more sense from that player's real-world perspective. Others play it as a set of rules that sometimes work in slightly abstract ways that can be construed as nonsensical if you apply real-world logic to them.

To that second sort of player, the discussion is only over if it can be proved that disembarking is movement... which it would appear still sees some people undecided.

BTW, about the discussion on whether disembarking is really a 'move' or not? Check the FAQ I posted earlier it says that the unit models have to take the test. Guess What people? You only have to take the test when you MOVE into dangerous/difficult terrain.

This is technically incorrect. You take a Dangerous terrain test if you enter, leave or move through the terrain. If the rules grant a way of entering the terrain without it actually counting as movement, then you have not moved but have entered the terrain and so still need to take the test.

I'm with wildstyle and friends on this one. I'm not going to say more than that because all sides of this argument have been said to death. I'm also a little sad to see people responding without actually reading the whole, or even the first page of this thread. It is a pain to read 4 pages of posts but if you want to respond on page 4 you need to do it.

@marcus: "Why attempt to win by nerfing and rules lawyering your way through a game. Fight it out and have fun by BS, S vs T, and Save!". We're discussing the rules so people can play by the rules when this situation comes up, not trying to get around anything or bully people into playing by our set of rules. If that is how you really feel then this entire section of the forums is probably not for you.

Halsfield wrote:I'm with wildstyle and friends on this one. I'm not going to say more than that because all sides of this argument have been said to death. I'm also a little sad to see people responding without actually reading the whole, or even the first page of this thread. It is a pain to read 4 pages of posts but if you want to respond on page 4 you need to do it.

@marcus: "Why attempt to win by nerfing and rules lawyering your way through a game. Fight it out and have fun by BS, S vs T, and Save!". We're discussing the rules so people can play by the rules when this situation comes up, not trying to get around anything or bully people into playing by our set of rules. If that is how you really feel then this entire section of the forums is probably not for you.

Honestly, I play it that the unit is destroyed. However, I don't think it's what the rules say. If my opponent wanted to play strictly by the rules it would be bad sportsmanship to play otherwise.

Lacross wrote:well, your pinned unit stays pinned until the end of "your" turn.

and it wasn't "your" turn when "your unit" got pinned from the ED.

Where does it say they're pinned anywhere?

He should have said possibly pinned as you have to take a pinning test on an ED.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Lacross wrote:well, your pinned unit stays pinned until the end of "your" turn.

and it wasn't "your" turn when "your unit" got pinned from the ED.

Where does it say they're pinned anywhere?

sbeasley wrote:He should have said possibly pinned as you have to take a pinning test on an ED.

The point that Cannerus is trying to make is to clear up the misconception that performing an emergency disembark pins the unit. You have to take a pinning test any time a vehicle is destroyed. There are times that you might perform an emergency disembark on your own turn (if a vehicles hatches are covered and you *have* to get out of the transport) in which case they may do nothing more that turn (as defined on page 9 as "player turn"). If you are forced to perform an emergency disembark during your opponent's turn, then the unit may do nothing for the rest of *that* turn, but they are not pinned.

Or course the book also states.

ED states
but the unit can’t do anything else for the rest of the turn

Does this mean if they get assaulted they can't defend themselves?

failing a pinning test says it just going to ground.

going to ground says The drawback of going to ground is that the unit can do nothing until the end of its following turn.

I can see that if you make a ED in your turn it prevents that unit from doing something else that turn to prevent unscrupulous people from ED from the front of a vehicle with no doors in the front that had not moved and then trying to move normally to gain extra distance.

"Whilst it has gone to ground the unit may do nothing of its own volition, but will react normally if affected by enemy actions. . . If assaulted, the unit will fight as usual. . ."

Right but I'm talking about what ED states. It hasn't been pinned, but can still do nothing that turn. What happens in that case?

Oooops, misread that then.
I understand now.

That is pretty funny, more reading!

Ah nothing happens, because assaults all happen simultaneously unlike shooting. In the assault phase you have to assault with all the units that you are going to assault with. So I can't hold one unit back and then assault a unit that might pop out of the vehicle. So I guess that rule is really only there if you ED on your turn to stop you from just ED to pop out the front of your vehicle, so you don't potentially expose your weak armor sides and back or gain extra distance or some shenanigans like that.

*sigh* insaniak... for the purposes of rules involved, my point was that if a disembarking unit- moving into, through, out of etc... dangerous terrain during it disembarkment has to take a test--- a test only triggered by movement--- then it stands to reason that disembarkement = movement, and thus is subject to the same restrictions i.e.- can't move within 1" of enemy models.

If a transport was next to a.. high plateau for instance... say 6-7" higher... would you simply measure the 2" deployment horizontally only and thus allow models to deploy way up there?

Would you allow a transport next to a 5" tall, impassable wall deploy its troops straight through the wall simply because it is within 2"?

For both, I would hope, the answer is probably not-- because there are recognized limits to deployment movement i.e. blocking terrain features-- which the enemies serve as in this situation.

With that said, I want to go watch some grass grow.

Honestly I don't know why people are arguing that deploying, to deploy doesn't indicate movement.

Deploy
–verb (used with object)
1. Military. to spread out (troops) so as to form an extended front or line.
2. to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately: to deploy a battery of new missiles.

Seriously if you say deploying isn't moving then you don't know what deploy means. Just because the rule book doesn't define deploy, doesn't mean that it loses it's meaning. Well the book doesn't define "a", or "the" or "player" and many other words. That is what a dictionary is for.

The Dragon wrote:*sigh* insaniak... for the purposes of rules involved, my point was that if a disembarking unit- moving into, through, out of etc... dangerous terrain during it disembarkment has to take a test--- a test only triggered by movement--- then it stands to reason that disembarkement = movement, and thus is subject to the same restrictions i.e.- can't move within 1" of enemy models.

Yes, I got that. My counter-point was that Dangerous Terrain tests are not triggered specifically by movement.

If a transport was next to a.. high plateau for instance... say 6-7" higher... would you simply measure the 2" deployment horizontally only and thus allow models to deploy way up there?

Not sure what that has to do with the topic. But no, I wouldn't let them deploy there. Some players would, as they only measure everything horizontally, believing this to be a 2D game.

Would you allow a transport next to a 5" tall, impassable wall deploy its troops straight through the wall simply because it is within 2"?

I wouldn't, for the same reason I wouldn't allow the deployment suggested at the start of this thread. But going by the response to the thread, others would disagree.

yak wrote:Disembarking is movement, as I have shown, this is not implication. Deep Striking is similarly described as being movement. Running is movement. Assaulting is movement. None of these are "normal" movement per se, but they are all still movement and therefore still follow the basic restrictions for moving.

I disagree.

Running and assaulting have clearly defined start and end points determined by where the model began the action and a maximum number of inches it can move. This is movement. Models performing these types of movements must clearly follow the "can't come within 1" of enemy models" restriction when moving. I'm with you so far.

Here's where I believe our interpretations differ. I submit that models deep striking and models deploying from a vehicle are not bound by those restrictions. I group them together because of their similarities. Deepstriking and disembarking are similar in that in each instance, the models do not start on the board. Models embarked in a transport are no more "on the board" than models waiting to deepstrike. The rules for deep strike and disembarkation simply create conditions describing where the model can (and can not) end up. These rules in no way restrict how the model gets there. There is no mandatory path the models must travel to get to their destination, and no restrictions on whatever "movement" it might take to get there, because these rules involve deploying models, not moving models. Just because you are physically moving your models onto the board does not make that action a movement which is restricted by the 40k movement rules.

Deep Strike says: "Roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows. First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice." BGB P.95
Disembark says: "When the unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle's access points, and within unit coherency. models cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy" BGB P. 67

That difference is fundamental. These models do not begin the action on the board, so they do not have a starting point as would be required for a movement bound by the normal movement rules. That means these models are being deployed, not moved. This is different from typical "from reserves" deployment (which also involves models that do not begin on the board) for two reasons:
1. "from reserves" deployment invents an off-board starting point for you; and
2. "from reserves" deployment specifies that the models are moved "as normal"

"When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player's own table edge ... Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn and moved as normal." BGB P. 94

Disembarkation, like deep striking, is model placement, not model movement, because the models do not begin the action on the board. Every disembarking model could, in theory, get out and run six vigorous laps around the vehicle, hopping gleefully from helmet to helmet of its foes, flagrantly flaunting the "can't come within 1" of enemy models" restriction on normal movement in every conceivable way, before I place it in its final resting place. The placement is governed by the rules. The "journey" to that final placement is not. What I do with the model before it gets there, how close it gets to enemy models in the meantime, what it passes over, etc., is irrelevant. What matters is its final resting place is within 2" of a transport's access point and not within 1" of an enemy model.

To interpret the rules for placing models differently would lead to absurd results in the context of deep strike. If you were forced to obey the 'basic restrictions for moving' when deep striking, you could not deep strike a non-outflanking unit onto the opposite side of the board if your opponent had a string of models in 2" coherency along the midfield line, as they would have to pass within 1" of an enemy unit to do so.

The Dragon wrote:my point was that if a disembarking unit- moving into, through, out of etc... dangerous terrain during it disembarkment has to take a test--- a test only triggered by movement--- then it stands to reason that disembarkement = movement, and thus is subject to the same restrictions i.e.- can't move within 1" of enemy models.

I disagree with this as well.

A model placed in dangerous terrain has entered it. A model that moved into dangerous terrain has entered it. In both cases a dangerous terrain test is triggered. Therefore the dangerous terrain test is not "only triggered by movement." Further, dangerous terrain tests can also be triggered by a deep strike, which, as I've argued above, is placement, not movement, and does not follow the normal restrictions for movement.


-GK

insaniak wrote:

The Dragon wrote:*sigh* insaniak... for the purposes of rules involved, my point was that if a disembarking unit- moving into, through, out of etc... dangerous terrain during it disembarkment has to take a test--- a test only triggered by movement--- then it stands to reason that disembarkement = movement, and thus is subject to the same restrictions i.e.- can't move within 1" of enemy models.

Yes, I got that. My counter-point was that Dangerous Terrain tests are not triggered specifically by movement.

If a transport was next to a.. high plateau for instance... say 6-7" higher... would you simply measure the 2" deployment horizontally only and thus allow models to deploy way up there?

Not sure what that has to do with the topic. But no, I wouldn't let them deploy there. Some players would, as they only measure everything horizontally, believing this to be a 2D game.

Would you allow a transport next to a 5" tall, impassable wall deploy its troops straight through the wall simply because it is within 2"?

I wouldn't, for the same reason I wouldn't allow the deployment suggested at the start of this thread. But going by the response to the thread, others would disagree.

My mistake then, sorry

If this has been stated im sorry.

a transport completely surounded and is wrecked (ie a 5 on the dmg table) the unit inside is destroyed per the trapped rule. they cant stay withing the radius of the vehicle as it is impassible untill they deploy as per the wrecked results for transports, the unit diembarkes takes a pinning check then the vehicle is wrecked, they cant deploy at the 2" mark as you cant move through enemy units. Any other impassible terrain blocking the exit points on the vehicle (ie. cant fit a unit between the vehicle and the terrain without moving one of them) also counts towards being traped.

for an exploding vehicle (6+ on the dmg table) the unit is placed where the vehicle was and then take the S4 hit from the transport exploding, as well as all of the units surrounding the vehicle taking their s3 hits. take your casualties, and your pinning check and proceed with the game.

The "trapped" rule only applies to units falling back. Disembarking does not equal falling back.

-GK

sbeasley wrote:Honestly I don't know why people are arguing that deploying, to deploy doesn't indicate movement.

Deploy
–verb (used with object)
1. Military. to spread out (troops) so as to form an extended front or line.
2. to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately: to deploy a battery of new missiles.

Seriously if you say deploying isn't moving then you don't know what deploy means. Just because the rule book doesn't define deploy, doesn't mean that it loses it's meaning. Well the book doesn't define "a", or "the" or "player" and many other words. That is what a dictionary is for.

But the book does define what constitutes 'movement' and so it is important to know what is and is not classed as such - words take on different, more specific applications when used in a ruleset. I'm not arguing any particular point here, I'm just pointing out that you cannot rely on a language dictionary when dealing with specific game terms and concepts.

And I would argue that point. No where in the book does it define movement is ...

Atleast that I could find.

Any time a model changes place from one location to another it HAS moved

Some rules circumvent the rule rule of moving through units. Like skimmers, teleporting, jump infantry, etc.

But deployment doesn't state that you can move thru models. When you deploy you have an origin and a destination. So unless the unit has the ability to move through or over a unit then it can't.

sbeasley wrote:And I would argue that point. No where in the book does it define movement is ...

Atleast that I could find.

Any time a model changes place from one location to another it HAS moved

Some rules circumvent the rule rule of moving through units. Like skimmers, teleporting, jump infantry, etc.

But deployment doesn't state that you can move thru models. When you deploy you have an origin and a destination. So unless the unit has the ability to move through or over a unit then it can't.

Movement is defined by the entirety of the movement rules. "Deploying" is not mentioned in those rules.

It isn't the Movement section. It is the Movement Phase section of the book. That is where a majority of movement takes place, that is why a majority of the rules for it are there. It isn't the end all be all list of what movement is, unless it states movement is only this, this and this.

I'm arguing deployment is movement, because in all cases of deploying there is an origin there is a destination, so there is movement, and are therefore held to the rule of moving through units.

Deploying from reserves in all cases do not break this rule of moving through units. All deepstrike units either teleported, have jump packs or some way of moving through units, and in anycase they are porbably coming from the sky as there point of origin, and coming straight down onto the board.

Deployment at the beginning of the game is okay because you can't deploy into an enemy deployment zone

Deployment of infiltrators have restrictions on how close you can deploy making it near impossible that they wouldn't be able to deploy and not have been able to come from a valid table edge

Deployment from reserves you position the unit on the board edge and move as normal weather from outflanking or normal reserve.

Deployment is movement, and must follow the restrictions of movement.

Deployment of infiltrators and deployment of your forces at the beginning of the game is two uses of the word "deploy" which are very, very conclusive not movement.

"Deploying" from reserves is movement in most cases... but I'm not sure if the rules actually use the word deployment to describe moving-from-reserves. I'll have to look that up.

In any case, your argument that deployment is movement in all cases is proven wrong by your own examples.

The English definition of deploy means to move strategically. I can help that you want to ignore what to deploy means.

What I said didn't help your cause at all. You just think it does based on what you think deploy doesn't indicate movement. I'm saying even if my army was in my army bag, and I deployed my forces on the board that they actually MOVED from my bag onto the board. They don't just magically materialize onto the battle field. Seriously.

It's obvious neither of us is going to convince the other either way. I say deploy means movement, you say it isn't.

I can't believe this arguement is still going on...

I think some people just love to argue.

Sbeasley's point is that different types of deployment describe types of movement from various A and B points. Deepstriking (in non teleporting units) is from the sky to the ground and therefore doesn't need to move through anything on the table, but does specify that the area the unit is landing on needs to be clear or else the unit dies. Deploying from the table's edge is moving onto the table as if the table extended beyond it's edge. How are these not also types of movements with special rules? Deploying out of a transport implies movement from point A (the transport) to point B (somewhere else than the transport).

Eveywhere else within the book specifies that moving through enemies units, teleporting too close to them or landing on top of them is a no no.

I still can't envision a world where making this arguement during a game wouldn't label a person as TFG.

GiantKiller wrote:The "trapped" rule only applies to units falling back. Disembarking does not equal falling back.

-GK

I was only using that as a more comonly known rule that has the same effect.

The rulebook states that a model cannot come within 1" of an enemy model during a move unless making an assault.
It also states in the disembarking rule that you cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy.
And it also states on pg 67 when a transport is wrecked you make an emergency disembarkation, any models that cant be placed are destroyed, then you make a pinning check, and after all tat the vehicle becomes a wreck.

so technicly with a rhino you dont need to surround it youd just need about 3 models on each long side and one in the back and the units inside will be destroyed if the vehicle wrecks.

ManwithIronHands wrote:

GiantKiller wrote:The "trapped" rule only applies to units falling back. Disembarking does not equal falling back.

-GK

I was only using that as a more comonly known rule that has the same effect.

The rulebook states that a model cannot come within 1" of an enemy model during a move unless making an assault.
It also states in the disembarking rule that you cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy.
And it also states on pg 67 when a transport is wrecked you make an emergency disembarkation, any models that cant be placed are destroyed, then you make a pinning check, and after all tat the vehicle becomes a wreck.

so technicly with a rhino you dont need to surround it youd just need about 3 models on each long side and one in the back and the units inside will be destroyed if the vehicle wrecks.

Except the emergency disembark rule allows them to disembark from any point on the hull if the normal access points are covered.

I'll admit, I didn't read ALL 5 pages. I just wanted to mention that Emergency Disembarkation can occur even if the vehicle isn't destroyed. I would think those marines would be able to survive, provided they are outside of the 1" required for movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ManwithIronHands wrote:The rulebook states that a model cannot come within 1" of an enemy model during a move unless making an assault.

I think the word intend is in there somewhere. I'm sure somewhere that will make a difference.

That's all true, which is why the arguement here is what happens when the vehicle is completely surrounded therefore necessitating a move through an enemy unit.

If disembarking does not count as moving then can heavy weapons fire after they disembark?

phillosmaster wrote:That's all true, which is why the arguement here is what happens when the vehicle is completely surrounded therefore necessitating a move through an enemy unit.

exactly

willydstyle wrote:Except the emergency disembark rule allows them to disembark from any point on the hull if the normal access points are covered.

missed that

Furthermore can Lasguns fire 24"?

Both smart points....smart alex. Smartly worded as well.

Except the Rules says they "Count as" moving, not that they actually moved. <nitpick>

Gwar! wrote:Except the Rules says they "Count as" moving, not that they actually moved. <nitpick>

Moving also counts as moving. The fact that it counts as moving more than suggests a relationship to movement.

They count as moving for the purposes of shooting their weapons. If the vehicle did not move, and you disembark, you may still move afterwards, so you haven't counted as moving for the purposes of movement. Counting as moving for the purposes of shooting does not mean you automatically follow all other rules for movement.

willydstyle wrote:They count as moving for the purposes of shooting their weapons. If the vehicle did not move, and you disembark, you may still move afterwards, so you haven't counted as moving for the purposes of movement. Counting as moving for the purposes of shooting does not mean you automatically follow all other rules for movement.

I don't see why we should assume it doesn't follow all the rules for movement unless otherwise stated, and I think that's the big difference between your viewpoint and mine.

*appended*

All that tells me is you've already started a movement.

The rules are pretty specific when they tell you that something does or does not follow the rules for movement.

Assaulting? Yes, follow the rules for movement, plus some extra.

Reaction move? Yes, follow the rules for movement, the rules for assaulting, minus some exceptions.

Disembarking from a vehicle? It doesn't say to follow the rules for movement, instead it has it's own set of specific rules.

Wow this thread has gotten far from its origonal question.

To sum up the last few posts, disembarking from a stationary vehicle counts as moveing for the purposes of shooting heavy waepons and rapid fire weapons, think of it this way. it takes time to set up a large heavy waepon if your pulling it out of your transoport your using the time you would generaly use to set it up for your shooting phase, same goes for firing a rapid fire weapon at its max range, anyone who has ever shot a gun at longer ranges knows what im talking about, it takes time to set up your shot to be sure your going to hit your target.

It is generally assumed that you forgo your moving to set up your heavy weapon or train your rifles sights on a target. your not going to have time to do this when disembarking from your transport as your collecting your gear (as most know its difficult to sit down with a pack on your back) and getting ready to move out. You can rapid fire after disembarking if you can picture a marine or guardsman running out the hatch of his rhino or chimera with his finger on his weaponts trigger opening up into the enemy.

Read your rule books its all in there.

I'd not argue that the rules are completely specific about anything. If the rules were absolutely specific we wouldn't need a YMTC board.

My point is that disembarking counts as moving because by exiting the vehicle you have started a movement. I mean you did physically move from inside a vehicle to the outside of said vehicle.

My arguement is the same arguement as yakface's. The rules are telling you that if you move after disembarking it's furthur movement. Therefore it doesn't need to explicitly state that you need to follow the rules of movement because you are moving. I don't see why we should assume it doesn't follow the rules just because it didn't explicitly state it does.

phillosmaster wrote:I'd not argue that the rules are completely specific about anything. If the rules were absolutely specific we wouldn't need a YMTC board.

My point is that disembarking counts as moving because by exiting the vehicle you have started a movement. I mean you did physically move from inside a vehicle to the outside of said vehicle.

My arguement is the same arguement as yakface's. The rules are telling you that if you move after disembarking it's furthur movement. Therefore it doesn't need to explicitly state that you need to follow the rules of movement because you are moving. I don't see why we should assume it doesn't follow the rules just because it didn't explicitly state it does.

it does state that the unit counts as moving, pg 67 1st paragraph second bullet
" If the vehicle has not yet moved, then hte passengers may disembark and mover normally, the disembarked models may shoot (counting as moving), and may asault as normal."

the first bullet states that the unit may not move as normal but may shoot counting as moving and may not assault.

phillosmaster wrote:That's all true, which is why the arguement here is what happens when the vehicle is completely surrounded therefore necessitating a move through an enemy unit.

I'm under the impression the voluntary emergancy disembarkation explodes the vehicle, forcing models inside to take a dangerous terrain test, creating a crater where the vehicle was, cover for people in crater, difficult terrain... etc

If this is the case, wouldn't the model inside be placed where the vehicle WAS?

Please, GWAR!, if you are on lemme know if I am mistaken.

-----EDIT----

NVM - I read the book again, Musta been a house rule or something

I noticed you guys were still arguing. Then I looked at the thread title again.

How will you play it? Vehicles surrounded by 25mm bases and disembarking.

I put some emphasis on some really important stuff. What do you honestly think is going to happen when you tell someone your playing against that since you surrounded the transport everything in it dies instead of getting to do anything. Kind of lame huh?

I know it says it nowhere in the rules (and because the rules are very unclear) I'd just say the unit inside the transport enters assault with the unit that surrounded the transport.

Because I honestly don't think anyone down at my FLGS just wants nothing to really happen, and just have a bunch of their dudes toasted.

But you have tournaments to play in, so keep going. It's important for that.

he was asking what happens... i wasn't arguing

cept right there....
and there....
and there....

Typeline wrote:I noticed you guys were still arguing. Then I looked at the thread title again.

How will you play it? Vehicles surrounded by 25mm bases and disembarking.

I put some emphasis on some really important stuff. What do you honestly think is going to happen when you tell someone your playing against that since you surrounded the transport everything in it dies instead of getting to do anything. Kind of lame huh?

Thats actually how I've always seen it played for the LAST THREE EDITIONS. I've never seen anyone who didn't play it that way. Frankly how would you? are the attackers surrounding the vehicle now sudenly surrounded themselves even though you can't have minis within 1in of an opponent unless they are in assualt? Thats a new one.

Frazzled wrote:

Typeline wrote:I noticed you guys were still arguing. Then I looked at the thread title again.

How will you play it? Vehicles surrounded by 25mm bases and disembarking.

I put some emphasis on some really important stuff. What do you honestly think is going to happen when you tell someone your playing against that since you surrounded the transport everything in it dies instead of getting to do anything. Kind of lame huh?

Thats actually how I've always seen it played for the LAST THREE EDITIONS. I've never seen anyone who didn't play it that way. Frankly how would you? are the attackers surrounding the vehicle now sudenly surrounded themselves even though you can't have minis within 1in of an opponent unless they are in assualt? Thats a new one.

THIS!

That is why you can block entrances from say waveserpents with normal models and with jetbikes etc. It just works that way.

Typeline wrote:I noticed you guys were still arguing. Then I looked at the thread title again.

How will you play it? Vehicles surrounded by 25mm bases and disembarking.

I put some emphasis on some really important stuff. What do you honestly think is going to happen when you tell someone your playing against that since you surrounded the transport everything in it dies instead of getting to do anything. Kind of lame huh?

I know it says it nowhere in the rules (and because the rules are very unclear) I'd just say the unit inside the transport enters assault with the unit that surrounded the transport.

Because I honestly don't think anyone down at my FLGS just wants nothing to really happen, and just have a bunch of their dudes toasted.

But you have tournaments to play in, so keep going. It's important for that.

pg 67 states in the 1st paragraph that you cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy model, your transport is completelty surrounded therefore you cannot disembark, and since your models cant be placed, they are destroyed when the vehicle wrecks.

as for an explosion the unit is placed where the vehicle was, the only problem is that it doesnt state anything about what happens if you cant place your unit ouside of 1" from the enemy unit. id assume any that cant be placed would be destroyed aswell.

I just noticed something... on pg 67 in the section Effects of Damage Results on Passengers it states under Destroyed-Wrecked:

"The passengers must immediately disembark (emphasis mine) and then take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed."

Note that this does not allow for an "emergency disembark" but ONLY a "disembark" action. An "emergency disembark" is NOT a "disembark" and according to the rules as written, the unit is destroyed. It says so in black and white.

Thank you, thank you very much.

IronHands wrote:the first bullet states that the unit may not move as normal but may shoot counting as moving and may not assault.

Models arriving by deep strike have a similar rule.

"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase." BGB p. 95

Deepstriking models do not have to follow the "normal movement restrictions" and still count as having moved. Disembarking models are similarly unrestricted in how they move, the only restrictions created by the rules restrict where the models end up.

Frazzled wrote:Frankly how would you? are the attackers surrounding the vehicle now sudenly surrounded themselves even though you can't have minis within 1in of an opponent unless they are in assualt?

Due to the size of the assaulting models' 25mm bases, the passengers could meet the requirements of being placed within 2" of the vehicle's hull AND not within 1" (25.4mm) of an enemy model... which is all the rules require.

IronHands wrote:pg 67 states in the 1st paragraph that you cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy model, your transport is completelty surrounded therefore you cannot disembark, and since your models cant be placed, they are destroyed when the vehicle wrecks.

The issue raised by the original poster is that models *can* be placed within 2" of the vehicle's hull AND not within 1" of an enemy model. Which is all the disembarkation rules require. The disembarkation rules do not restrict disembarking models from coming within 1" of an enemy model on the way there. A disembarkation is best described as model placement or model deployment, not model movement, because these models are beginning the action off-board and have no pre-determined "starting point" for the action.



Also, arguments based on "how I imagine this would work if these toys were real soldiers" are particularly unpersuasive. Imaginations can, and do, vary. For example, while it is perfectly plausible that the surrounding assaulters would annihilate anything climbing out the access points of a now-wrecked vehicle, it is just as plausible that a genetically enhanced supersoldier from the future would easily be able to climb out a top hatch and leap heroically over the heads of surrounding foes to safety.


-GK

The Green Git wrote:Note that this does not allow for an "emergency disembark" but ONLY a "disembark" action. An "emergency disembark" is NOT a "disembark" and according to the rules as written, the unit is destroyed. It says so in black and white.

Sorry, but this is wrong.

An emergency disembarkation is a method of disembarking that is used if the models can not disembark normally.

It is still a type of disembarkation. It's not a separate action. It is listed in the Disembarking section, is specifically allowed when models can not disembark normally, and is specifically referred to as a form of disembarkation in that section.

So if the rules allow you to Disembark, then you are allowed an emergency disembarkation is normal disembarkation is not possible.

GiantKiller wrote:

The issue raised by the original poster is that models *can* be placed within 2" of the vehicle's hull AND not within 1" of an enemy model. Which is all the disembarkation rules require. The disembarkation rules do not restrict disembarking models from coming within 1" of an enemy model on the way there. A disembarkation is best described as model placement or model deployment, not model movement, because these models are beginning the action off-board and have no pre-determined "starting point" for the action

my understanding of the way the rules for disembaking work is any of the models base cannot be placed outside of the 2" zone, I could be wrong. but the rulebook does state that the model is deployed within the 2" area. that diagram shown on the page has one model clearly outside of the 2" zone so I wouldent take it as a true representation of what can be done.

Plus how would a guy get from inside the vehicle through the enemy unit and onto the other side of them without being stabed, shot, flogged, or any sort of other natsy thing happening to them. To me that would constitute movment through an enemy unit.

Ps arguments like this is probly why this thread is going on and on.

insaniak wrote:Sorry, but this is wrong.

An emergency disembarkation is a method of disembarking that is used if the models can not disembark normally.

And this is where RAW cuts you off at the knees. It says if the unit cannot *DISEMBARK* then it is *DESTROYED* and not "may emergency disembark".

The Green Git wrote:
And this is where RAW cuts you off at the knees. It says if the unit cannot *DISEMBARK* then it is *DESTROYED* and not "may emergency disembark".

im inclined to agree

IronHands wrote:my understanding of the way the rules for disembaking work is any of the models base cannot be placed outside of the 2" zone, I could be wrong.

Respectfully, you are wrong. Please revisit the diagram on p. 67, and note the caption: "All of the Space Marines have disembarked within 2" of the transport's access points." BGB p. 67. That includes the space marine with the missile launcher whose base is 99.9% outside the 2" zone.

The Green Git wrote:It says if the unit cannot *DISEMBARK* then it is *DESTROYED* and not "may emergency disembark".

I agree with you that *models* which cannot disembark are destroyed according to the destroyed-wrecked entry. "Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed." BGB p. 67 (emphasis added). However, emergency disembarkation is part of disembarkation. In fact, a model's ability to make an emergency disembarkation is part of the tests to see if a model can or cannot disembark. Here's a flow-chart of sorts:

1. Can the model disembark in coherency within 2" of an access point without landing in impassible terrain or within 1" of enemy models? If yes, do it. If not,
2. Can the model make an emergency disembarkation within 2" of the hull without landing in impassible terrain or within 1" of enemy models? If yes, do it, if not, the model cannot disembark.

We know it's part of the test because of this line: "If even this [emergency] disembarkation is impossible, they can't disembark." BGB p. 67

You don't destroy the models until you know they can't disembark. You don't know if the model "cannot disembark" until they've tried an emergency disembarkation according to the line quoted above. If they can make an emergency disembarkation, they're not destroyed.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:
That includes the space marine with the missile launcher whose base is 99.9% outside the 2" zone.

There has to be some sort of % limit on that or you could technicly place the model anywhare on the table and claim theres at least 1 atomic particle within 2" of the transport even if its 0.000000000000000000000000000~01 of the model.


theres really only 2 fair ways of resolving the delema, 4+ it , or call in a 3rd party

that and still have it verify with the 1" from the enemy model


Automatically Appended Next Post:
really, how are you going to measure that?

There has to be some sort of % limit on that or you could technicly place the model anywhare on the table and claim theres at least 1 atomic particle within 2" of the transport even if its 0.000000000000000000000000000~01 of the model.

Your reductio ad absurdem argument fails to impress. The limit is represented in that diagram on P.67. That diagram merely requires the disembarking model's base to be touching the 2" zone, however slightly. A model anywhere else on the table is not touching the 2" zone.

-GK

The Green Git wrote:And this is where RAW cuts you off at the knees. It says if the unit cannot *DISEMBARK* then it is *DESTROYED* and not "may emergency disembark".

It doesn't say that they can't perform an emergency disembark at all.

Again, emergency disembarkation is not a separate action. It's a part of the rules for Disembarking.

When you disembark, you place the models within 2" of an access point.
If that is impossible, you perform an emergency disembark.
If that is impossible, you can not disembark.


The Wrecked damage result changes that last point by specifying that models that can not disembark are destroyed, instead of simply being unable to disembark. It says nothing about changing the normal rules for disembarking in any other way.

The original argument is this:

"my transport is wecked, completely surrounded by guys on 25mm bases, can my guys emergency disembark from the tank, jump over your models and deploy on the other side of your models."

The answer to the question is apparently yes according to RAW. Tho it doesnt make sense but i guess its 40k so it doesnt have to.

But how often does this situation come up. the surounder would have to have the perfect ammont of models to surround the vehicle without doubbling up and the disembarker would have to do alot of careful placement to both stay within the 2" of the tank and outside 1" of the enemy.

ManwithIronHands wrote:But how often does this situation come up. the surounder would have to have the perfect amount of models to surround the vehicle without doubling up and the disembarker would have to do alot of careful placement to both stay within the 2" of the tank and outside 1" of the enemy.

More often than you might think. For an Ork army it is routine to be assaulting a vehicle with 20 or more models. Typically they contain less than ten passengers. Also, as an Ork general one will find close combat the most reliable form of anti-vehicle measure making assaults much more likely.

insaniak wrote:It doesn't say that they can't perform an emergency disembark at all.

Again, emergency disembarkation is not a separate action. It's a part of the rules for Disembarking.

When you disembark, you place the models within 2" of an access point.
If that is impossible, you perform an emergency disembark.
If that is impossible, you can not disembark.


The Wrecked damage result changes that last point by specifying that models that can not disembark are destroyed, instead of simply being unable to disembark. It says nothing about changing the normal rules for disembarking in any other way.

You're taking the emergency disembark passage out of it's context and applying it to a different part of the rules. Why would the rules specify "may not do anything else that turn" when the models being forced from the burning wreck could not normally do anything anyway? As pointed out already, an 'emergency disembark' is a move the owning player can choose to make when he would otherwise normally disembark of his own volition, on his turn and it is not required that the vehicle be wrecked to perform an emergency disembark. That's why the rules specify the models can do nothing else that turn. It's the owning players turn.

To pluck that section out and apply it to the damage effects on passengers section is wishful thinking. It does not say that the models can emergency disembark from a wreck, just that they must disembark and if they cannot disembark they are destroyed.

This same distinction has been applied to rams and tank shocks... I'm just carrying it to it's logical extension here. An 'emergency disembark' is not a normal disembark, it's a special type of disembark and is not explicitly allowed in the damage section rules. The rules are permissive, not exclusive. You can't argue "It doesn't say I can't emergency disembark" because it doesn't say I can't do a multitude of things. It just says I can *disembark*.

If I deploy my troops into dangerous terrain at the start of the game do they take a dangerous terrain test?

No, because I'm not moving them there, I'm placing (deploying) them.

And that is where my argument comes into play. The dictionary defines deployment as moving strategically. So you can't originate your deployment from the vehicle and end your deployment on the other side of my unit unless you have something that overrides moving through units. Like Jump Packs, Teleporting, Skimmer, etc.

As everyone knows specific > general

Move is general and deploy is specific. Deploy is a specific type of movement: moving strategically. Deploy doesn't specifically override the restriction on moving through units.

Deployment, in regard to WH40k, is placing.

My falcon doesn't vrooom vroom into a forest at the start of the game, I place it there.

People, on any one's side of the argument...

Please tell me this--- why would they EVER include the rules about models in a unit who are unable to deploy being destroyed if it was situationally impossible

which it seems to be by the way some of you haggle.

For those of you who want say OH I can completely ninja over models, etc. --- play against yourself here and tell us just WHEN they actually would be destroyed.

I want hard examples, measures, etc.

If you find it to be nigh but utterly impossible, chances are you're wrong. All I can think of is if you had 4 rhinos with one in the center boxed completely in by the other with people assaulting from the front.

You know why you're screwed then? Because you're surrounded by impassable.

You know what it is when there are enemy models on all sides-- the same. They're impassable.

I stand by my previous example way on earlier in the thread. If there were an impassable wall, 5" tall, completely solid and your transport was right next to it, would you say you can 'deploy' THROUGH the wall.

The answer is a resounding no.

Also, there have been a couple of few other good technical points which have been summarily ignored. I think the most important one is this-- even IF (and you can't) you jump through the models surrounding you and land on the other side-- you're likely within 1" of the enemy-- which is illegal.

Another fine thing I noticed is this-- lots of talk about Deep striking-- Guys, when you DS you can't land in impassable and if you land in difficult, you take a dangerous test--- Why? because it says you take the test for having moved into the difficult terrain. Deepstriking vehicles? You count as having moved 6".

There is something to be said about infiltrators "deploying" in difficult terrain with out having to take a test, but that's also very different-- They're actually starting the game there, statically. Units using the Scout move do have to take terrain tests and so do units DEPLOYING from vehicles into/through terrain-- it says so in the FAQ/Errata for the main 40k BGB.

I saw some mention on the words 'counts as moving' not meaning fully held to the rules of movement. I personally think this is ridiculous. That's like saying wings 'count as jump packs', but don't actually get to ignore intervening terrain because they're not ACTUALLY jump packs.

Counts as means = to, in my book.

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If 'counts as' always gets you the good stuff for all other models and special rules, I think it should dick you with movement restrictions as well.

The Dragon wrote:Please tell me this--- why would they EVER include the rules about models in a unit who are unable to deploy being destroyed if it was situationally impossible

which it seems to be by the way some of you haggle.

For those of you who want say OH I can completely ninja over models, etc. --- play against yourself here and tell us just WHEN they actually would be destroyed.

I want hard examples, measures, etc.

Happy to oblige. This situation happened to me in a doubles tournament game last year. Our team was lash chaos (me) and horde orks. Our opponents were Tau and Old Codex Guard. On my turn, I parked a rhino full of berzerkers next to a building classified as impassible terrain. On their turn, our opponents parked a chimera 1" from the front of the rhino, and some guardsmen surrounded most of the remaining two sides, at a distance of 1" as required by movement. In their shooting phase, the tau player wrecked the rhino. Most of the berzerkers could not be placed within 2" of the rhino's hull AND not in impassible terrain or within 1" of an enemy model, because of the building, the chimera, and the surrounding guardsmen. There was only room to place 2 or 3 models (thankfully the rule indicates that models which cannot disembark are destroyed, not units, which would indicate that the entire squad is destroyed if even one model cannot disembark), and the rest were destroyed. While my team went on to win the game and the tournament, I considered it a very "heads-up" play by our opponents and complimented them on it again afterword.

As for the rest of your arguments, "counting as moved" does not impose the normal movement restrictions on the models that are placed. Deep Strike is the perfect example. Deep striking models count as moved after they deep strike, but it would be ridiculous to impose the normal movement restrictions on them because a. we don't know where they're starting their supposed "move" from and b. the rules only define where the models can and cannot be placed, not how the models get there. Deploying from a vehicle is the same concept. It is a placement, not a movement. We don't have a starting point for the move, and the rules define only where the model can end up, not how it must move to arrive at that destination.


-GK

In addition to what giant killer has said, the reason why deepstriking models take dangerous terrain tests for difficult terrain is that we are told specifically that they do in the rules.

If deepstriking=movement then they would actually not take dangerous terrain tests, because difficult terrain only imposes dangerous terrain tests upon vehicles and jump infantry in normal circumstances.

As far as the 5" high wall goes, I believe it is another ridiculous situation that is perfectly permitted by the rules.

Also, if a vehicle is surrounded by 40mm or 60mm bases when it is destroyed, the unit inside would be destroyed, or if the unit were surrounded by multiple 25mm bases, so there are plenty of situations where the rule for not being able to disembark would come into play.

Well next time I surround a tansport with my nids ill have to put hte guys in so theres no area to place the embarked models in.

As long as you're following all the assault rules (including making sure that every model that can reach base to base does in fact move to B2B) then that's a good way to approach it.

GiantKiller wrote:

The Dragon wrote:Please tell me this--- why would they EVER include the rules about models in a unit who are unable to deploy being destroyed if it was situationally impossible

which it seems to be by the way some of you haggle.

For those of you who want say OH I can completely ninja over models, etc. --- play against yourself here and tell us just WHEN they actually would be destroyed.

I want hard examples, measures, etc.

Happy to oblige. ...

And you think that was a realistic example. Where it required vehicle, impassible terrain, and a unit, and still didn't get them all as you were still able to deploy part of the unit.

Let's consider this.

BGB Page 16: RUN wrote:At times, warriors may have to quickly redeploy, literally running from cover to cover or simply concentrating on movement and giving up their chance to shoot.

So right here I can see that when talking in context of both [re]deploy and movement are used in the same context.

willydstyle wrote:As long as you're falling all the assault rules (including making sure that every model that can reach base to base does in fact move to B2B) then that's a good way to approach it.

I play leaping nids, I guess id have to get a fex or tyrant in to destroy the damn thing and hope it doesnt explode or im bound to fry alot of hormies.

The Green Git wrote:You're taking the emergency disembark passage out of it's context and applying it to a different part of the rules.

No, I'm not. I'm taking it in its context, as a part of the rules for disembarking. It's not a separate rules section. It's not even a separate paragraph.

Why would the rules specify "may not do anything else that turn" when the models being forced from the burning wreck could not normally do anything anyway?

That would be because emergency disembarking can also happen on your own turn. It doesn't mean that it can only happen on your own turn?

As pointed out already, an 'emergency disembark' is a move the owning player can choose to make when he would otherwise normally disembark of his own volition, on his turn and it is not required that the vehicle be wrecked to perform an emergency disembark.

Ok. Why?

What leads you to believe that emergency disembarking is a separate and distinct action from disembarking, that can only be performed on your own turn.

It isn't listed as such in the disembarking rules. No mention of it only being available in your own turn. No mention of it being separate.

It is simply listed as something that you can choose to do if you are disembarking and can't place the models within 2" of the access points. As a part of the disembarking rules. In the same paragraph, in fact.

To pluck that section out and apply it to the damage effects on passengers section is wishful thinking.

That's just it, though. I'm not the one 'plucking it out'

I'm including it as a part of the disembarking rule. Where it is actually placed in the rulebook.

You're taking it out of that rules section and trying to count it as a separate, stand-alone rule.

It does not say that the models can emergency disembark from a wreck, just that they must disembark and if they cannot disembark they are destroyed.

It doesn't need to say that they can emergency disembark, as emergency disembarking is just a part of the disembarking process.

This same distinction has been applied to rams and tank shocks... I'm just carrying it to it's logical extension here.

The big difference there is that Rams and Tank Shocks are two separate and distinct rules sections.

An 'emergency disembark' is not a normal disembark,

It's not a normal disembarkation, but it is a part of the rules for disembarking.

The Wrecked rules tell you to disembark. So you follow the rules for disembarking.

That means, as I said before:
You place the models within 2" of the access points.
If that is impossible, you perform an emergency disembark.
If that is impossible, you can not disembark.
Due to the Wrecked rule, if you can not disembark, you are destroyed.

Nothing in the Wrecked rule suggests that you only apply half of the rules for disembarking. It's not a matter of the rules not saying I can't. It's a matter of the rules saying 'apply this rule' and that meaning 'apply this rule' and not just 'apply half of this rule'

Insaniak has provided a complete description of the sequence of events that happens.

willydstyle wrote:
As far as the 5" high wall goes, I believe it is another ridiculous situation that is perfectly permitted by the rules.

I simply can't accept that. While i can't say, definitively, that I am right, I know enough about the game, with just a feel for the rules, that that is wrong. It just flies in the face of all the other rules. How can impassable be impassable if it in fact is QUITE passable with that? It just breaks the rules.

I'm not the codex, FAQ, or Errata guy, so Like I said, I'm not the final word, but I know we don't play it that way here, I haven't played it that way in any tournament, I haven't met any others ( save for yourself of course) who play it that way, and it doesn't seem to mesh with any of the other rules in the game.

Do with it what you would. All I know is I wouldn't let it fly in a friendly match ( I'd probably say roll a d6 for it as it's unlikely to come up beforehand and I try not to deliberately be TFG) and I would call in the tourney head for a ruling in a tournament.

That's all.

Well, the original question was not "do the rules support this" but "how will you play it?"

Don't I know it. That's why in the end-- if you think about how the situation is likely to develop-- the only fair thing to do is roll off.

I mean, think about it, the person going in with the vehicle against a pure horde and assuming they can ninja over the enemy models is likely only doing so BECAUSE they think their unit can still escape. If they knew they couldn't, they wouldn't allow it to happen in the first place.

Vice versa, the person swarming the enemy transport might not commit as many forces as required under the other guy's interpretation to completely cut off the unit's disembark because he thinks all he needs to do is surround the vehicle and then blammo. If he used a super-weak, but plentiful force to do this and assumed the unit inside was going to be dead, their sudden survival could be devastating.

Thus, with both player's having a real stake in the situation and both having failed to check with the other, I think a roll off is fair.

This is how I would likely play it.

And you think that was a realistic example.

It happened. In a game. So yes, it was a realistic example of how enemy units surrounding a wrecked vehicle can cause disembarking models to be destroyed. This isn't a theoryhammer example, it actually happened to me during play. Realistic does not equal commonplace. Do you truly not understand why this was a realistic example or do you just like to hear yourself type?

-GK

Sometimes I find the clicking noise rather snazzy. Its got its own little beat I can hum to.

Come on guys, let's keep it civil -- we may actually beat the 8 pg limit on posts before they devolve into the next best thing to death threats.

insaniak wrote:The big difference there is that Rams and Tank Shocks are two separate and distinct rules sections.

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock and is executed the same way..."

insaniak wrote:

An 'emergency disembark' is not a normal disembark,

It's not a normal disembarkation, but it is a part of the rules for disembarking.

OK, so it's a disembark that isn't a disembark... just like a ram is a tank shock that's not a tank shock?

insaniak wrote:Nothing in the Wrecked rule suggests that you only apply half of the rules for disembarking. It's not a matter of the rules not saying I can't. It's a matter of the rules saying 'apply this rule' and that meaning 'apply this rule' and not just 'apply half of this rule'

Again... disagree. No matter how many times you post what you think the sequence is, the section of the Damage Effects on Passengers table doesn't say "may disembark just as they would in the movement phase" or anything like that. It just says "disembark" and not "emergency disembark". If you want to argue that the models follow all the rules for disembarking then I can move too, right? Of course not. It's not the movement phase any more.

I'm just following the rules as written. The Damage Effects is an entirely different section of the book.

*sigh*

The rules pretty explicitly state that emergency disembark is a disembark that auto-triggers when you need to/have to/ are forced to, etc. disembark and are unable to because of surrounded exit points. It also handily adds that if 'even emergency disembark fails then the models that can't disembark are destroyed'

However, ignoring that grating, xeroxed point... It occurs to me that the very existence of the emergency disembark rule itself proves models cannot ninja over enemy units during disembarkment.

Why? Because--- if they could ninja over, why would the exits be considered "blocked" in the first place by surrounding models. A regular disembark, not an emergency one, would allow them to simply step over enemy models into safety.

If they cannot do it in a regular disembark, they certainly cannot in an emergency disembark. The only extra rules the emergency disembarkation give is that you can leave through ANY point of the vehicle--- namely you're turning all of the vehicle into an exit point-- which under the rules of regular deployment-- would be considered surrounded and blocked in the scenario of complete surrounding.

Edit: Come on guys, we're almost to 8 pages without vociferous hate-spewing , self aggrandizement, or people putting on the woe-is-me show, Let's give it the last push to 8 pages.

The Green Git wrote:

insaniak wrote:The big difference there is that Rams and Tank Shocks are two separate and distinct rules sections.

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock and is executed the same way..."

Sorry, but I have no idea what point you think you just made. Can you elaborate?

insaniak wrote:OK, so it's a disembark that isn't a disembark... just like a ram is a tank shock that's not a tank shock?

No, it's a disembark that's not a normal disembark, but is a part of the disembarking process.

Again... disagree. No matter how many times you post what you think the sequence is, the section of the Damage Effects on Passengers table doesn't say "may disembark just as they would in the movement phase" or anything like that. It just says "disembark" and not "emergency disembark". If you want to argue that the models follow all the rules for disembarking then I can move too, right? Of course not. It's not the movement phase any more.

So, again, please post the reason that you think that the emergency disembark is separate from the rules for disembarking, despite being listed in the disembarking section instead of as a separate rule.

There is no 'emergency disembarkation' section. Just a section that covers disembarking. When disembarking, you refer to that section. That section tells you how to disembark, which is as I have posted.

So, again, can you provide a rule that tells you to specifically ignore half of that section?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Dragon wrote:Why? Because--- if they could ninja over, why would the exits be considered "blocked" in the first place by surrounding models. A regular disembark, not an emergency one, would allow them to simply step over enemy models into safety.

Unless the enemy models aren't actually flush against the access point, are stacked more than one model deep, or are on larger than 25mm bases.

simple point, where does it state that you can hop over an enemy model to be 1" away. to disembarark you have to move from the vehicle this means moving on the ground. the men inside are dead.

RB

RB wrote:simple point, where does it state that you can hop over an enemy model to be 1" away. to disembarark you have to move from the vehicle this means moving on the ground. the men inside are dead.

Whether or not disembarking follows the movement rules has been one of the main points being debated throughout this thread...

I'll post this again as people didn't even want to consider it, because it is within the rules, and it mentions both deploy and movement. For all those deploy doesn't equal movement crowd.

BGB Page 16: RUN wrote:At times, warriors may have to quickly redeploy, literally running from cover to cover or simply concentrating on movement and giving up their chance to shoot.

So right here I can see that when talking in context of both [re]deploy and movement are used in the same context.

Yes, because we all know the Run Rules have EVERYTHING to do with the Deployment rules.

Obviously they do, because they mention deploy. This is exactly like the crowd that says deploy doesn't equal movement, because it isn't mentioned. Here I'm seeing the word deploy, because that is all they care about, mentioned in the context of movement, aka running. They can no longer argue deployment isn't movement, because it is in a movement rule. Therefore there whole argument of I'm placing and not moving falls apart.

sbeasley wrote:Therefore there whole argument of I'm placing and not moving falls apart.

By no stretch of the imagination does the fluff statement describing a run move you quoted impose normal movement restrictions on models performing a disembarkation.

That is why your quote was originally ignored. It is a fluff statement describing a run move. It is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

-GK

Oh, so now you can decide what is fluff, and what is a rule. Talk about absurdity. It is obvious that you want to redefine what words mean, and choose what is and isn't a rule in order to justify your blatant disregard for was intended and even IMO worded because deploy means to move, regardless of how the mechanic works it is still movement, because you can't move from the vehicle because the models aren't really in the vehicle. That is why they say place, because they don't scoot across the board from wherever you have them currently positioned.

sbeasley wrote:Oh, so now you can decide what is fluff, and what is a rule. Talk about absurdity.

Yes, I can. You can, too. It requires no remarkable powers of deduction. Use this as a rough, general guideline, and trust your gut:

If the text quoted provides instructions or restrictions telling the player how to perform some action or function in the game, it is a rule.

If the text quoted describes how a unit or action fits into the universe of 40k, or the story surrounding a game, it is fluff.

As an exercise, we'll apply that guideline to work out whether the following examples are fluff or rule. Both are from the same portion of Codex:IG p.36 regarding the "First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank, FIRE!" order.

Statement 1: "The Guardsmen unleash a fusillade of lasgun volleys into the enemy to the tempo of the officer's bellowed commands." Codex:IG p.36

While it references guardsmen and lasguns, this text isn't telling the player how to perform any action using those things in a game, so it is probably not a rule. It does seem to be describing how this action fits into the "story" of the battle. The officer yells FIRE, and the guardsmen fire. It is telling us how this action fits into the 40k universe. So we know this text is fluff, not rule.

Statement 2: "If the order is successfully issued, the ordered unit immediately shoots at any visible target. If the enemy is up to 12" away, models firing lasguns fire three shots, rather than just two. ..." Codex:IG p. 36

This text, by contrast, is telling the player how to perform an in-game action. It uses terms like "models" and specific measurements in inches, which indicate that it is not fluff. It also references and modifies other rules, such as the rule that lasguns typically fire two shots within 12". So we know this text is rule, not fluff.


Now, look again at the text you quoted. Apply the guidelines above. Is the text you quoted fluff or rule?

-GK

Also, sbeasly, as we have discovered before, the rulebook uses "deploy" in at least as many places that don't mean movement as it uses the word in places that imply movement.

The difference is that the places where you use the movement rules, the rulebook tells you "use the rules for movement."

My point is this, and finally this.

This is completely RAI after this, so that with a grain of salt.

If you were stupid enough to allow your vehicle to be surrounded and wrecked. You deserve what you get. Unit destroyed.

What you are suggesting allows for what was a strategic advantage to be punked by details of interpretation, and then you allow the player to take advantage of said interpretation to now take advantage of the player who was intended to have a strategic advantage in the first place.

Since this thread was originally about how you play it, you are currently being out voted 78% to 22%, so good luck getting this to fly, and not being smacked up the head for being TFG.

I have to agree though this post was to mainly get this thread up to 200 replies congratulations!!!

sbeasley wrote:My point is this, and finally this.

This is completely RAI after this, so that with a grain of salt.

If you were stupid enough to allow your vehicle to be surrounded and wrecked. You deserve what you get. Unit destroyed.

What you are suggesting allows for what was a strategic advantage to be punked by details of interpretation, and then you allow the player to take advantage of said interpretation to now take advantage of the player who was intended to have a strategic advantage in the first place.

Since this thread was originally about how you play it, you are currently being out voted 78% to 22%, so good luck getting this to fly, and not being smacked up the head for being TFG.

I would encourage you to read the first post of the thread. I'm not being "voted out." I'm being "voted with."

I also recognize, however, that how most people play it does not follow the rules of the game. Rather than trying to twist the rules to follow how I think the game should be played (passengers destroyed) I simply admit that the rules are absurd and play it differently. However, and I've said it before, if my opponent wanted to play strictly by the rules, it would be poor sportsmanship not to allow him to.