Soo. Friday night rolls in and it's our weekly game. A Chaos Land Raider filled with Terminators and a lord attempt to tank shock Vet. Guardsmen from an objective. The melta vets pass their morale and declare DoG. The result is exploded LR with the terminators sitting in it's crater unpinned. And very angry .
Thus the question arises: can you assault out of an assault vehicle that isn't there any longer?

As i write this i realise that the answer is probably yes. We need to stop playing that late at night .
Please confirm my hunch....

If a transport explodes you don't disembark so there is nothing preventing you from assaulting even if you travelled by Rhino.

If a transport is wrecked you do disembark though but as you disembark before the transport becomes a wreck the Assault Vehicle rule is still in effect.

Webbe wrote:If a transport explodes you don't disembark so there is nothing preventing you from assaulting even if you travelled by Rhino.

If a transport is wrecked you do disembark though but as you disembark before the transport becomes a wreck the Assault Vehicle rule is still in effect.

Webbe is 110% correct. The "Destroyed - Explodes" result does not technically cause the unit to Disembark, so you can assault out of any transport that explodes, while Wrecked DOES make you disembark, so you can only assault out of an Open Topped Transport or one that has a special rule allowing you to assault.

Thanks! Like i said it seemed perfectrly reasonable at the time (3am) to disallow it. Thank you for your time.

Gwar! wrote:

Webbe wrote:If a transport explodes you don't disembark so there is nothing preventing you from assaulting even if you travelled by Rhino.

If a transport is wrecked you do disembark though but as you disembark before the transport becomes a wreck the Assault Vehicle rule is still in effect.

Webbe is 110% correct. The "Destroyed - Explodes" result does not technically cause the unit to Disembark, so you can assault out of any transport that explodes, while Wrecked DOES make you disembark, so you can only assault out of an Open Topped Transport or one that has a special rule allowing you to assault.

That is a wonderful distinction until one looks at page 67 for the rule on assaulting ex-passengers, and sees the part where GW uses the phrase "the now disembarked passengers" to refer to passengers of a vehicle which either exploded or wrecked.

solkan wrote:
That is a wonderful distinction until one looks at page 67 for the rule on assaulting ex-passengers, and sees the part where GW uses the phrase "the now disembarked passengers" to refer to passengers of a vehicle which either exploded or wrecked.

That's a wonderful distinction until one realizes that the rules for explodes never say they Disembark (and go to some lengths to explain a different way for them to leave the vehicle), and that 'disembarked' has a meaning in the English language which applies to any passengers which have left a vehicle.

Gorkamorka wrote:

solkan wrote:
That is a wonderful distinction until one looks at page 67 for the rule on assaulting ex-passengers, and sees the part where GW uses the phrase "the now disembarked passengers" to refer to passengers of a vehicle which either exploded or wrecked.

That's a wonderful distinction until one realizes that the rules for explodes never say they Disembark (and go to some lengths to explain a different way for them to leave the vehicle), and that 'disembarked' has a meaning in the English language which applies to any passengers which have left a vehicle.

You've actually wrote:

". . . that 'disembarked' has a meaning in the English language which applies to any passengers which have left a vehicle."

after writing:

". . . go on to some lengths to explain a different way for themto leave the vehicle . . ."


So, are you trying to say that disembarking means leaving a vehicle, but that leaving a vehicle is not disembarking, despite that fact that having left a vehicle you have disembarked?

It really doesn't matter if the entry uses the word disembark for Vehicle - Explodes, because if the unit isn't in the vehicle when it once was it has disembarked. There's no avoiding it. The proccess through which you become disembarked is the action of disembarking. Regardless of which specific action - be it walking out, teleporting out, snapping ones finger and making the vehicle disappear, the vehicle exploding out away from you, being pushed out literally through a meat grinder etc, etc. you have disembarked.

I think this is a bit silly.

So, a ship blows up offshore and the newspaper reports the passengers disembarking as a result. If the ship blew up, it didn't unload anything... it blew up, leaving the things inside without any way to exit. The tank disappeared before it had a chance to unload the units, it was the lack of a transport that left the units without an option to disembark.



You can't disembark from an explosion, it really makes no sense. Ejecting an object is not always synonymous with unloading one and it is hard to say that the ship ejects anything, when it has become pieces of a ship in the first place. The explosion is the action which removes the units inside a transport from within a transport, alternatively it is what removes the transport from the units within, leaving those units no way to disembark.

The difference between being surrounded in a transport and losing it to wrecked, or losing it to explodes should clear this up a bit as well. The tranport needs to be there to have any effect. As there are no explicit rules stating that the explodes effect does anything besides drop it's contents and leave a crater after a D6 S3 blast, one can safely assume that one can indeed assault after an explodes result.

You can't disembark from a nonexistent object. I guess if you really flex the definition of disembark... it still doesn't matter because you would be disembarking from an explosion, whatever the hell that would mean. The explosion replaces the vehicle as it happens, before the models inside are even placed on the board. You remove the vehicle and put down a crater, representing the fact that the vehicle disappeared in the beginning stages of an explosion, BEFORE the models inside were placed on the board.

Yes, there is a weird limbo for units inside transports here, they are in a certain space but it is undefined beyond containing the beginning of an explosion. If a house gets ripped into a thousand pieces by a tornado, is it still a house? It is pieces of a house, and WH40k rules say nothing about pieces of a vehicle.

So, it's silly to use the word disembarked to refer to a unit that was in a vehicle now exploded - which leads to them being able to assault. But the unit that merrily jaunts out the back door with a whistle on their lips and a spring in their step is so burdened by the effort that they can not assault is not silly?

While the idea that leaving by vehicular explosion isn't the first thing that springs to mind when I think of disembarking. Here we still are with "However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers . . ."p67 BRB as correct usage of the word disembark. Disembarked describe the state of that which is no longer in a vehicle, it implies nothing of the state of said vehicle other then that something is no longer in it.

The problem with the "that's silly" argument is that in a fictional setting it's also silly, and it leads to all sort of "that's silly" finger pointing.

I do happen to think this is a bit silly. There are a lot of questionable points in the WH40k rules.

After disembarking, these models may
shoot (counting as moving), but may not assault.

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

However, if a transport is destroyed
(either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it
may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is
allowed to assault according to the assault rules.

What you are suggesting also seems to suggest that after disembarking at any point in the game, the squad always counts as having disembarked. There is no mention of the squad disembarking, whether or not there is mention of them being 'Now disembarked'.

If you disembark on turn one, you are 'Now disembarked' until you enter another vehicle. At any point you are not in a specific transport when you were before, you are 'Now disembarked' and the action is complete, requiring a second disembarkation to trigger the 'disembark' rules. The act of disembarking is not explicitly stated, as I and others have already mentioned. There is no rule stating that the models left without a transport can't assault. When in doubt, refer to RaW.

Note how direct this statement is when compared with explodes.

Destroyed – wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then
take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark
are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

Vs.

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

You can be infinitely 'Now disembarked'.

Wrexasaur wrote:I do happen to think this is a bit silly. There are a lot of questionable points in the WH40k rules.

After disembarking, these models may
shoot (counting as moving), but may not assault.

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

However, if a transport is destroyed
(either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it
may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is
allowed to assault according to the assault rules.

What you are suggesting also seems to suggest that after disembarking at any point in the game, the squad always counts as having disembarked. There is no mention of the squad disembarking, whether or not there is mention of them being 'Now disembarked'.

If you disembark on turn one, you are 'Now disembarked' until you enter another vehicle. At any point you are not in a specific transport when you were before, you are 'Now disembarked' and the action is complete, requiring a second disembarkation to trigger the 'disembark' rules. The act of disembarking is not explicitly stated, as I and others have already mentioned. There is no rule stating that the models left without a transport can't assault. When in doubt, refer to RaW.

Note how direct this statement is when compared with explodes.

Destroyed – wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then
take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark
are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

Vs.

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

One can not be the animal cat without being the animal feline anymore then you can be the animal feline without being the animal cat. The same holds for "disembarked" and "no longer being in the vehicle" they are synonymous. Whether the word disembarked is used or not RaW clearly states the models are not in the vehicle. This isn't implying they have disembarked it is directy stating it, RaW says they are placed on the table, the very definition of disembarking.

Wrexasaur wrote:You can be infinitely 'Now disembarked'.

Where does the silliness end would be a great question. Does it end with a units sequence, a phase, a turn, a game? Or with allowing units to assault after an explosion but not after using a door?

Wrexasaur wrote:After disembarking, these models may shoot (counting as moving), but may not assault."

The entire paragraph (first one p67 BRB) that it is snipped from is clearly talking about actions that turn and not the rest of the game even though they are in fact in the state of disembarked the rest of the game.

I would love if it were that clear, I really would.

It is not stated that all results work in the same way.

EFFECTS OF DAMAGE
RESULTS ON PASSENGERS

Wrecked... "passengers must immediately disembark"

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

I'll leave this discussion for the time being on this note. Explain to me why you assume that both results have the same consequences, when they don't.

Same section, different rules. If the squad exits an explosion, they aren't disembarking from a vehicle. You could say that disembarking into an explosion, then exiting the explosion is the same as disembarking from a transport. I would say that you are wrong.

Rules lawyers, got to love em, just be glad you don't have them in at your FLGS

Wrexasaur wrote:I would love if it were that clear, I really would.

It is not stated that all results work in the same way.

EFFECTS OF DAMAGE
RESULTS ON PASSENGERS

Wrecked... "passengers must immediately disembark"

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

I'll leave this discussion for the time being on this note. Explain to me why you assume that both results have the same consequences, when they don't.

Same section, different rules. If the squad exits an explosion, they aren't disembarking from a vehicle. You could say that disembarking into an explosion, then exiting the explosion is the same as disembarking from a transport. I would say that you are wrong.

Relativism of the sort "is the vehicle performing the action (i.e. exploding) or is the unit preforming the action (i.e. using the door)?" does not lead to the former not being an action of disembarking of the unit and the latter being one.

General_Chaos wrote:Rules lawyers, got to love em, just be glad you don't have them in at your FLGS

Yeah at your FLGS where people have to "Physically win combat to use Hit & Run..." - GWBS.

With out going into the debate of what to call getting your ass flung out of an exploding vehicle; my question is how would they assault out of the vehicle if it is not their turn to do so?


As I understand it, this land raider is being shot at and thus it is the enemies turn. At what point in the enemy player's turn can the Termies inside this LR decide to assault out of their ride? I mean I would love to be able to randomly choose assaulty bits in my armies to just jump to action in the other players turn. But I'm still missing the part where they would get to do this?

As the vehicle would be destroyed in the other players turn, leadership/pinning tests are taken ((in this case passed)) and of course with the right result in the following turn that Terminator squad could then walk, shoot or assault from their postion as normal "disembarked" units. So I don't get where assaulting out of a destroyed LR would come into play. Even a wreck because it forces you out at the end of that result anyway. Either way, you end up outside of the vehicle, the vehicle gone, and still waiting for your turn to end. Even if it was the last shooting in the enemies shooting phase, the tank is still gone and thus one is no longer embarked/inside it.

Dracheous ,if you would read the OP, then you would see that he was tank shocking with a vehicle on his turn, and the squad he was shocking performed a Death or Glory, and exploded his LR, on his turn, which brings up this situation.

Death or Glory as mentioned in the initial post.

"Disembarking" is a defined rule within the game, and counts as moving - which is why you cannot place models within 1" of an enemy model.

The Explodes! result is NOT disembarking, as you are PLACED - not moved - and can therefore be within 1" of an enemy.

AS such you can assault. You have not disembarked in the game sense (for a start you have neither used an exit nor have you been placed within 2" of the hull, you were placed INSIDE the hull) but you have disembarked in the english sense of "no longer being in a vehicle"

Ahh, the old disembarked/didn't disembark/it exploded argument. Do a search, this has been covered several times with no real consensus.

If they didn't disembark, could the unit move then assault after the vehicle explodes? IE could you take a DE tank, ram from across the board, explode, get out, move then assault..?

WEll if you can find a DE transport vehicle that can ram then yes, as long as you explode.

Hmm, what about Eldar tanks then?

nosferatu1001 wrote:WEll if you can find a DE transport vehicle that can ram then yes, as long as you explode.

Yep, as long as you explode you have not disembarked in the game sense (as you have not followed any of the rules for disembarking, not a single one) and therefore may assault.

Of course if you only *wreck* your vehicle you die, as you may not disembark at all if you move flat out (which a ramming skimmer is likely to be doing)

You could move as well right? Since you didn't disembark...? So, in theory, you could ram 18"...explode....move 6 inches, fleet d6 inches, assault 6 inches? Strange situation but possible!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yep, as long as you explode you have not disembarked in the game sense (as you have not followed any of the rules for disembarking, not a single one) and therefore may assault.

Of course if you only *wreck* your vehicle you die, as you may not disembark at all if you move flat out (which a ramming skimmer is likely to be doing)

Ram 24" for a fast skimmer.

Of course you need to survive the pinning test, the wounds on 3+ (bad for say, harlies) for most of your troops (wraithguard would survive and wouldnt be pinned) and avoid the 1/3 of damage results where you die (immob, wreck) and the 1/2 of results where nothing much happens (or you die, if you roll weapon destroyed and have already lost all weapons) just for that 1/6 chance where you can get out and assault.

I'm sure this has been covered but it seems rather simple to me. The rules absolutely allow the assault.

As for the logic behind it, there's actually a kind of sense to it. When a vehicle is wrecked the unit must disembark. This is done in an orderly fashion out of the various hatches and follows all the disembarking rules. When the vehicle explodes it means that parts of the hull have been flung away or simply vanish in a cloud of vaporised ceramite. The unit inside is wearing super space armour of some kind and therefore have the chance of surviving this disaster, and if they do there is no longer any hull in there way or hatches to open and negotiate so they are free to assault (if it is there turn to do so).

I'm familiar with math....I just wanted to see if it was possible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ram 24" for a fast skimmer.

Of course you need to survive the pinning test, the wounds on 3+ (bad for say, harlies) for most of your troops (wraithguard would survive and wouldnt be pinned) and avoid the 1/3 of damage results where you die (immob, wreck) and the 1/2 of results where nothing much happens (or you die, if you roll weapon destroyed and have already lost all weapons) just for that 1/6 chance where you can get out and assault.

Yes, as it is the same situation - how you got to "explodes!" isnt really the issue!

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Disembarking" is a defined rule within the game, and counts as moving - which is why you cannot place models within 1" of an enemy model.

The Explodes! result is NOT disembarking, as you are PLACED - not moved - and can therefore be within 1" of an enemy.

AS such you can assault. You have not disembarked in the game sense (for a start you have neither used an exit nor have you been placed within 2" of the hull, you were placed INSIDE the hull) but you have disembarked in the english sense of "no longer being in a vehicle"

Incorrect, The Explodes! result IS disembarking.

they can assault out of the now Exploded land raider if it is an assault vehicle, if it is not an assault vehicle then they can not assault.

Page 67 under Destroyed - Explodes says ... If a transport is destroyed (Either Result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot at it may assault the NOW DISEMBARKED passengers.

This shows that models inside a transport that suffer a Destroyed - Wrecked or Destroyed - Explodes result, have indeed DISEMBARKED. Quite clear really.

Nope, not at all. 2 uses of the word. One the defined process, the other the general english.

Given that the "disembarked" models didnt follow ANY OF THE RULES FOR DISEMBARKING I dont think they dismembark.

Or, put like this:

The act of disembarking and the state of being disembarked are two very different things. The state of being disembarked only requires you to have recently been in a transportation device, where the term "recently" is very highly subjective time period (could be minutes, could be days).

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nope, not at all. 2 uses of the word. One the defined process, the other the general english.

Given that the "disembarked" models didnt follow ANY OF THE RULES FOR DISEMBARKING I dont think they dismembark.

Simply because it is a given that if they were in a transport, and the transport explodes into a thousand scraps, they have by default disembarked, granted through no fault of their own, but they sill have disembarked.

Also there is the other bullet point under the Disembarking (also P67.) states "If a vehicle has already moved, the passengers may disembark, but NOT MOVE ANY FURTHER in that movement phase..." [it goes on to say they can not assault either]

so clearly they can not assault unless it is an Assault Vehicle.

Except, as pointed out, the passengers are now "disembarked" but did not do so using the "disembark" rules - as I pointed out explodes follows NONE of the disembark rules.

Sorry but you are simply incorrect on this, as you ignore context.

This issue can be difficult to uinderstand because of the nature of the 40k rules. There are words that are rules (in this case Disembark) that have a set of conditions attached to them, then gw uses those same words (in this case disembarked) in other places in their ordinary english form to refer to events that happen(ed).

Disembark as a rule has a set of conditions, a unit has to follw those conditions if it disembarks. If a unit leaves their vehicle without following the rules for Disembark, then it has merely disembarked (left its vehicle).

It doesnt help matters that the 40k rules have several authors, or that the rules have been written over many years.



Sliggoth

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except, as pointed out, the passengers are now "disembarked" but did not do so using the "disembark" rules - as I pointed out explodes follows NONE of the disembark rules.

Sorry but you are simply incorrect on this, as you ignore context.

Look at Page 66,

"Embarking and disembarking. models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the movement phase, and may not voluntarily both Embark
and disembark in the same player turn. however, they may embark and then BE FORCED TO DISEMBARK if their transport is destroyed.

and since it does not say destroyed wrecked, they must mean both destroyed results.

so unless it is an assault vehicle, you can not move, get exploded and then assault from a transport.
so it seems that you are the one that is simply incorrect.

Actually, no, you are.

By your logic, you can never be forced to disembark, as there is no "Destroyed" result on the Vehicle Damage table, only "Destroyed - Wrecked" and "Destroyed - Explodes".
Much in the same way that a "Storm Bolter" and a "Heavy Bolter" are not the same as a "Bolter", "Destroyed - Wrecked" and "Destroyed - Explodes" are not the same as "Destroyed".

See, we can play semantics too, but I do it better.

<Grammanazi>Capital letters go at the star of sentences.</Grammanazi>

Gwar! wrote:Actually, no, you are.

By your logic, you can never be forced to disembark, as there is no "Destroyed" result on the Vehicle Damage table, only "Destroyed - Wrecked" and "Destroyed - Explodes".
Much in the same way that a "Storm Bolter" and a "Heavy Bolter" are not the same as a "Bolter", "Destroyed - Wrecked" and "Destroyed - Explodes" are not the same as "Destroyed".

See, we can play semantics too, but I do it better.

<Grammanazi>Capital letters go at the star of sentences.</Grammanazi>

There is no destroyed result? really? you just mentioned 2 destroyed results.
notice how Destroyed - Wrecked, and Destroyed - Explodes are both destroyed results. since in either case the vehicle is destroyed.

If you actually read my post you would see the logic in it.

what does "they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed." mean to you?
To everyone it means they are forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed (by any means)

I do not know how to explain it any better. if you are still confused please ask, but i think i have made it clear.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Actually, no, you are.

By your logic, you can never be forced to disembark, as there is no "Destroyed" result on the Vehicle Damage table, only "Destroyed - Wrecked" and "Destroyed - Explodes".
Much in the same way that a "Storm Bolter" and a "Heavy Bolter" are not the same as a "Bolter", "Destroyed - Wrecked" and "Destroyed - Explodes" are not the same as "Destroyed".

See, we can play semantics too, but I do it better.

<Grammanazi>Capital letters go at the star of sentences.</Grammanazi>

There is no destroyed result? really? you just mentioned 2 destroyed results.
notice how Destroyed - Wrecked, and Destroyed - Explodes are both destroyed results. since in either case the vehicle is destroyed.

If you actually read my post you would see the logic in it.

what does "they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed." mean to you?
To everyone it means they are forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed (by any means)

I do not know how to explain it any better. if you are still confused please ask, but i think i have made it clear.

All that does is give them permission to disembark when their vehicle is destroyed. Normally a model cannot disembark in the same turn the embarked. Now when you get a destroyed result that makes you disembark you can disembark. The destroyed - explodes doesn't cause you to disembark, it places you in the crater where your vehicle was so that line doesn't really matter when you get the destroyed -explodes result.

BrockRitcey wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Actually, no, you are.

By your logic, you can never be forced to disembark, as there is no "Destroyed" result on the Vehicle Damage table, only "Destroyed - Wrecked" and "Destroyed - Explodes".
Much in the same way that a "Storm Bolter" and a "Heavy Bolter" are not the same as a "Bolter", "Destroyed - Wrecked" and "Destroyed - Explodes" are not the same as "Destroyed".

See, we can play semantics too, but I do it better.

<Grammanazi>Capital letters go at the star of sentences.</Grammanazi>

There is no destroyed result? really? you just mentioned 2 destroyed results.
notice how Destroyed - Wrecked, and Destroyed - Explodes are both destroyed results. since in either case the vehicle is destroyed.

If you actually read my post you would see the logic in it.

what does "they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed." mean to you?
To everyone it means they are forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed (by any means)

I do not know how to explain it any better. if you are still confused please ask, but i think i have made it clear.

All that does is give them permission to disembark when their vehicle is destroyed. Normally a model cannot disembark in the same turn the embarked. Now when you get a destroyed result that makes you disembark you can disembark. The destroyed - explodes doesn't cause you to disembark, it places you in the crater where your vehicle was so that line doesn't really matter when you get the destroyed -explodes result.

Thank you for making my point. They disembark when their vehicle is destroyed.

"... forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed." means if their transport is destroyed they disembark, and as such can not assault
unless it is an assault vehicle and they move 12" or less.

hopefully this should clear this situation up.

PLease explain how they have Disembarked despite not following ANY of the disembark rules.

You keep ignoring this thinking it somehow proves your point. It doesnt.

You are confused between Disembark and disembark, I dont know how everyone can explain this any clearer to you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry but you are simply incorrect on this, as you ignore context.

Ignoring the Context? he's refering to a statement that's directly beneath the "Explodes" rule in the transport section. It's not some sort of obscure phrase off in some distant part of the book, it's still in the process of describing what happens to people that have thier transport detonated. we don't denote things for being in a separate paragraph despite being in the same section do we?

DeathReaper wrote:

Thank you for making my point. They disembark when their vehicle is destroyed.

"... forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed." means if their transport is destroyed they disembark, and as such can not assault
unless it is an assault vehicle and they move 12" or less.

hopefully this should clear this situation up.

I never said they disembark. That rule allows for a unit to disembark when it suffers a destroyed result. It doesn't tell you to disembark, but makes it possible for them to disembark. The wrecked result tells you to disembark, the explodes result tells you to place the models in the crater. Only in the wrecked result to do disembark and that rule allows for that.

Lotet - the rules for explode do not let you disembark, you in fact follow precisely 0 of the rules for disembarking.

SO you dont Disembark, you just end up actually disembarked. Entirely different.

The rules for the act of disembarking has you place your units within 2" of the transport. How can you place your unit within 2" of your transport if it's not there any more?
If Destroyed - Explodes! has you disembark, then you can't disembark because you can't follow the rules for disembarkation.

Additionally, examine the logic of "However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed". Then re-read it and see if you can spot a word which express uncertainty. I'll give you a hint, it's "may". This means that this CAN happen, but that it's not exclusive or guaranteed.

Mahtamori wrote:The rules for the act of disembarking has you place your units within 2" of the transport. How can you place your unit within 2" of your transport if it's not there any more?

Not that I am agreeing, but they do print rules for how that would occur. . .

kirsanth wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:The rules for the act of disembarking has you place your units within 2" of the transport. How can you place your unit within 2" of your transport if it's not there any more?

Not that I am agreeing, but they do print rules for how that would occur. . .

Well, yeah, of course, I'm just pointing out that Destroyed - Explodes doesn't follow the rules for disembarkation with an example.

So your asking if the unit can still assault that turn? Yes, I'm sure they can, since they didn't disembark.

Mahtamori wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:The rules for the act of disembarking has you place your units within 2" of the transport. How can you place your unit within 2" of your transport if it's not there any more?

Not that I am agreeing, but they do print rules for how that would occur. . .

Well, yeah, of course, I'm just pointing out that Destroyed - Explodes doesn't follow the rules for disembarkation with an example.

I was pointing out that specific rules delineating placement during what is generally agreed to be disembarking (without being named as such) could be read as a more specific version of disembarking.

Samus_aran115 wrote:So your asking if the unit can still assault that turn? Yes, I'm sure they can, since they didn't disembark.

But they can not assault if the transport has moved at all, unless it is an assault vehicle.

Destroyed - explodes! only states that they are placed where their vehicle used to be, after suffering the hits. no where here, or anywhere else in the rules states that the unit can assault so it can not assault.

Can people not understand "... forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed." [it] means if their transport is destroyed they disembark, and as such can not assault unless it is an assault vehicle and they move 12" or less."

it means if their transport is destroyed by any means the unit inside is forced to disembark. thus they can not assault, even though disembark says they have to be placed within 2" of an access point, this is hard to do when everything is ripped to pieces. in this instance they do not follow the rules for normal disembarkation because this is a special circumstance. however they are still forced to disembark.

Plus a transport that moves disallows assaults in the same turn page 67. " if the vehicle has already moved, the passengers MAY disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase... these models may shoot (counting as moving), but may not assault",

there is no getting around it. to assault after a transport has moved would be breaking the rules.

DeathReaper wrote:there is no getting around it. to assault after a transport has moved would be breaking the rules.

Wrong. Assaulting after a transport moves is impossible BECAUSE YOU WOULD STILL BE ON THE TRANSPORT.

Assaulting after DISEMBARKING from a moving transport is nor permitted unless otherwise permitted.

"Destroyed - Explodes" does not cause the models to disembark.

How hard is that to understand?

Oh, well. It would be the smoldering remains of an a vehicle, so it doesn't really matter if it was an assault vehicle or not.

Either that, or it's a crater, in either case; the passengers would be shaken up and unable to have the spirit to assault anyway, from a realistic approach.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Oh, well. It would be the smoldering remains of an a vehicle, so it doesn't really matter if it was an assault vehicle or not.

Either that, or it's a crater, in either case; the passengers would be shaken up and unable to have the spirit to assault anyway, from a realistic approach.

From a realistic approach, the passengers would never be there, since they would just have nuked it from orbit.

disembarking...sounds to me if a transport explodes, and guys are forced to get out, they loose acsess to any special the vehicle had, upon it being destroyed. just like any other model that looses its special rules when its killed or destroyed. that said, i dont really see a problem with those termies assaulting, since they were going to do so anyway...meh. could go either way. when in doubt or cant decide just dice it, and houserule with the result.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:there is no getting around it. to assault after a transport has moved would be breaking the rules.

Wrong. Assaulting after a transport moves is impossible BECAUSE YOU WOULD STILL BE ON THE TRANSPORT.

Assaulting after DISEMBARKING from a moving transport is nor permitted unless otherwise permitted.

"Destroyed - Explodes" does not cause the models to disembark.

How hard is that to understand?

so show me where it is "unless otherwise permitted." in the rules.

First the rules must declare that you can perform an action, for you to be able to perform said action.

if the rules do not say you can perform an action, you can not perform that action.

so show me where it says that you can assault out of a vehicle if it moves and gets exploded.

if you can not find it, then i am correct and the OP can not assault out of an exploded, non assault, vehicle.

hope this clears this issue up OP :-)

DeathReaper wrote:so show me where it says that you can assault out of a vehicle if it moves and gets exploded.

We have. SEVERAL TIMES.

Read the rules for making Assault Moves. That is your permission to assault.
Now Read the rules for transports. There is where you will find the rule that prevents you from assaulting after Disembarking.

So, a unit that has had its transport Explode now has permission to assault, and no restriction saying they cannot.

Thus, they can assault.

Some of you have gone off topic, and what most of you understand and dont understand is that we are talking about a LR with the assault rule.

The other thing of which you have to read up on is game turn. GW went back and changed things up with the whole your turn, my turn, and game turn.

On a 5 the vehicle is wrecked and the unit inside is forced to disembark. The assault rule allows for the unit that is disembarking to assault on the TURN in which they disembark. Thus the unit has the ability to assault because of the rulling on turn, and game turn. Notice this only applies to a roll of a five and only happens to one vehicle.

I guess you could say that while the vehicle is exploding the units charges head long out the front via the assault ramp into the enemies face.



Might be a six as its late and I have not read up on this in many months.

Gwar! wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:so show me where it says that you can assault out of a vehicle if it moves and gets exploded.

We have. SEVERAL TIMES.

Read the rules for making Assault Moves. That is your permission to assault.
Now Read the rules for transports. There is where you will find the rule that prevents you from assaulting after Disembarking.

So, a unit that has had its transport Explode now has permission to assault, and no restriction saying they cannot.

Thus, they can assault.

What page is that on, the assault section does not mention transports.

so we look at the transport vehicles section. P66/67

it states under embarking and disembarking "...forced to disembark if their vehicle is destroyed" (which includes wrecked and explodes) since destroyed - wrecked and destroyed - explodes are both destroyed results. then we must conclude that they disembark when their vehicle explodes. and as such can not assault.

under disembarking it states "if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but may not move further...these models may shoot(Counts as moving), but may not assault." and since they have been forced to disembark they must follow this rule.

Therefore they can not assault if they were in a non assault vehicle transport that moved any distance.

That clear it up for you?

The assault section doesn't need to mention transports.

Any unit on the table can assault in the assault phase. You are given that permission from the assault section. The rules then go on to limit who can assault. The forbid you from assaulting if you ran in the shooting phase, shot rapid fire weapons, and stuff like that.

Now the transport section adds a further restriction. If the vehicle has moved and the models then disembark it removes the permission to assault in that assault phase.

Next we have the vehicle explodes result. It does not tell you to disembark your models. It tells you to place them on the table in the crater where their vehicle used to be. Since the models have not disembarked then they do not get the restriction of not being able to assault because that is a rule tied specifically to disembark.

The line you keep quoting is incomplete and the first half completely changes what you are quoting. "they may embark and then be forced to disembark..." This give a unit permission to disembark in a turn that it has previously embarked. This does not tell you that vehicles that you must disembark from destroyed vehicles.

That clear it up for you?

BrockRitcey wrote:The assault section doesn't need to mention transports.

Any unit on the table can assault in the assault phase. You are given that permission from the assault section. The rules then go on to limit who can assault. The forbid you from assaulting if you ran in the shooting phase, shot rapid fire weapons, and stuff like that.

Now the transport section adds a further restriction. If the vehicle has moved and the models then disembark it removes the permission to assault in that assault phase.

Next we have the vehicle explodes result. It does not tell you to disembark your models. It tells you to place them on the table in the crater where their vehicle used to be. Since the models have not disembarked then they do not get the restriction of not being able to assault because that is a rule tied specifically to disembark.

The line you keep quoting is incomplete and the first half completely changes what you are quoting. "they may embark and then be forced to disembark..." This give a unit permission to disembark in a turn that it has previously embarked. This does not tell you that vehicles that you must disembark from destroyed vehicles.

That clear it up for you?

if you are inside a transport and it explodes, by default you are forced to disembark from said transport.
the rules state this, why do people not understand?

since the Chaos land raider IS an assault vehicle troops inside may assault the turn it moves.

if it were a rhino or razorback it would be a different story.

You are incorrect, why can you not understand this?
You are unable to understand context and usage. One is Disembark, the other is disembark. One is the usage of the disembark rules, which NOONE ON EXPLODES FOLLOWS, the other is the general state of no longer being in a vehicle.

RAW: On an explodes result you may assault, even if the vehicle moved.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are incorrect, why can you not understand this?
You are unable to understand context and usage. One is Disembark, the other is disembark. One is the usage of the disembark rules, which NOONE ON EXPLODES FOLLOWS, the other is the general state of no longer being in a vehicle.

RAW: On an explodes result you may assault, even if the vehicle moved.

only if the vehicle is an assault vehicle, you are adding rules that are simply not there.

and it is clear that you can not assault from a transport that has moved. the rules state this.

so disembark is different than disembark? the rules for disembarking and the state of being disembarked are one in the same.

we must speak different languages.

if you are in a transport, and you leave said transport by any means you have disembarked. and thus you can not assault. (Unless it is an Assault vehicle)

you have to look at intent, no other unit can assault out of a rhino or razorback that has moved so it would be insane to think that you could assault simply because the enemy have exploded your vehicle after its move.

Destroyed – wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then
take a Pinning test.
Destroyed – explodes!
The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP– hits equal
to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits
from shooting then take a Pinning test.

Units are not allowed to assault if:
They are already locked in close combat.
They ran in the Shooting phase
They have gone to ground
They shot rapid fire weapons or heavy weapons in the Shooting phase
They are falling back

They right DeathReaper, they don't disembark they 'fall-out' onto their faces. Suffering a destroyed - explodes result IS NOT something that forbids and assault.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
However for an example; if a unit shot a heavy weapon/s from their vehicle in the shooting phase and somehow sufferd an Explodes result - they would not be allowed to assault.

ChrisCP wrote:Destroyed – wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then
take a Pinning test.
Destroyed – explodes!
The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP– hits equal
to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits
from shooting then take a Pinning test.

Units are not allowed to assault if:
They are already locked in close combat.
They ran in the Shooting phase
They have gone to ground
They shot rapid fire weapons or heavy weapons in the Shooting phase
They are falling back

They right DeathReaper, they don't disembark they 'fall-out' onto their faces. Suffering a destroyed - explodes result IS NOT something that forbids and assault.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
However for an example; if a unit shot a heavy weapon/s from their vehicle in the shooting phase and somehow sufferd an Explodes result - they would not be allowed to assault.

did you read the section on not allowing models to assault if their transport has moved?

if the only time it lets you assault if the transport has moved is if the transport is an assault vehicle.

( P67.) states "If a vehicle has already moved, the passengers may disembark, but NOT MOVE ANY FURTHER in that movement phase..." [it goes on to say they can not assault either] and since they are "...forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed"(P.66) they can not assault
or are people ignoring this?
disembark = they were riding in the transport when it moved, and now in the same turn they are no longer aboard said vehicle

would love to hear what the grand tourney judges say about this one, something tells me that they would rule as i have.

Nope, they dont. Not in the UK GT at least (last year finals and heat 2 if memory serves) which you would hope, being at WHW and being attended by studio staff would have some clue what they meant.

Stop removing context. Disembark, the proper noun, refers to the series of rules that you follow to exit a vehicle *normally* Explodes DOES NOT make you Disembark, as you do not follow *any* of the rules for Disembark. You are, however, disembarked as you are no longer inside a vehicle.

Your inabiltiy to tell the difference between the two is telling.

DeathReaper wrote:
did you read the section on not allowing models to assault if their transport has moved?

if the only time it lets you assault if the transport has moved is if the transport is an assault vehicle.

I'm not being asinine but this might help.

What transport are you talking about? Can you point at it?

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
did you read the section on not allowing models to assault if their transport has moved?

if the only time it lets you assault if the transport has moved is if the transport is an assault vehicle.

I'm not being asinine but this might help.

What transport are you talking about? Can you point at it?

Page 67 under disembarking

"If the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase. once the models have disembarked, the vehicle may not move any further. after disembarking, these models may shoot (counts as moving), but may not assault.

and since p.66 Embarking and disembarking states "...[models] may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

therefore a model that is in a transport when it blows up has been forced to disembark, and can not assault.

Your conclusion is unsuported. As was pointed out earlier the "may" in that sentence further undermines your argument.

Destroyed - wrecked forces them to disembark. To decide that destroyed - explodes, where they are not forced to disembark (seriously, I woul dsuggest rereading that result and look for anything which even hints at disembark happening) fulfils that requirement is unsupported and illogical.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lotet - the rules for explode do not let you disembark, you in fact follow precisely 0 of the rules for disembarking.

well duh, I wasn't using any rules or making any statment on which way is right or wrong. I was just mumbling about something that bothered me with what that guy said

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are incorrect, why can you not understand this?
You are unable to understand context and usage. One is Disembark, the other is disembark. One is the usage of the disembark rules, which NOONE ON EXPLODES FOLLOWS, the other is the general state of no longer being in a vehicle.

RAW: On an explodes result you may assault, even if the vehicle moved.

Intended and Writen, these two words have meaning and you're trying to decide the usage of both in an inconsistant manner. ignoring rules that are well within the bounds of affecting other rules? how can you decide what is Implied or Redundant? but hey, get enough people to say something is true then it's bound to become the truth...



now I'm just messing with ya

DeathReaper wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
did you read the section on not allowing models to assault if their transport has moved?

if the only time it lets you assault if the transport has moved is if the transport is an assault vehicle.

I'm not being asinine but this might help.

What transport are you talking about? Can you point at it?

Page 67 under disembarking

"If the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase. once the models have disembarked, the vehicle may not move any further. after disembarking, these models may shoot (counts as moving), but may not assault.

and since p.66 Embarking and disembarking states "...[models] may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

therefore a model that is in a transport when it blows up has been forced to disembark, and can not assault.

Again for that squad at that time where is the transport they have disembarked from?

Lotet - not ignoring rules at all, please refer to the other posts.

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
did you read the section on not allowing models to assault if their transport has moved?

if the only time it lets you assault if the transport has moved is if the transport is an assault vehicle.

I'm not being asinine but this might help.

What transport are you talking about? Can you point at it?

Page 67 under disembarking

"If the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase. once the models have disembarked, the vehicle may not move any further. after disembarking, these models may shoot (counts as moving), but may not assault.

and since p.66 Embarking and disembarking states "...[models] may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

therefore a model that is in a transport when it blows up has been forced to disembark, and can not assault.

Again for that squad at that time where is the transport they have disembarked from?

Juts because the transport is destroyed does not negate the fact that they moved within it that same turn, however

the transport they have disembarked from is in a nice little crater of difficult terrain around them in a thousand pieces.

for movement and assault rules the max any SM unit can move and assault in one turn is 18" (Jump pack 12" 6" assault.)

to think that one can take a BA rhino, move it flat out in a ramming attempt, get it exploded, drop your marines and assault anything 24" away from where you started the turn is cheating.

Wrong, with fleet (Shrike) you can get another 6" from that.

Sorry that you cant see where you are going wrong, but you dont have a rules argument any longer as you have failed to address 2 critical flaws in your argument.

Denying someone the ability to assault after an explodes! result is cheating.

The vehicle moving isn't why people can't assault. It is when they disembark from a vehicle that has moved. Since the unit never did that then they aren't prohibited from assaulting.

BrockRitcey wrote:The vehicle moving isn't why people can't assault. It is when they disembark from a vehicle that has moved. Since the unit never did that then they aren't prohibited from assaulting.

Actually is is, if the vehicle moves and it gets destroyed they did indeed disembark they were forced to disembark (People must be ignoring this line, it clearly states they disembark when their vehicle is destroyed) it says that a unit is forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed on page 66. it doesn't need to be in the explodes section because it is already implied that they disembark if their vehicle is no longer there.

why have the assault vehicle rule if any vehicle can move get exploded and assault?

by what you are saying I can take Blood Angels rhinos load em up with assault troops, Flat out move them backwards so i ram my opponents on my 10 armor vehicles and destroy my vehicle just so i can assault the first turn? that really seems like cheating.

DeathReaper wrote:They did indeed disembark they were forced to disembark (People must be ignoring this line, it clearly states they disembark when their vehicle id destroyed)

Only for Wrecked.

Totally against the rules as intended.

You wrote the Rulebook then? Can we get a pic, oh mighty Allesio?

by what you are saying I can take Blood Angels rhinos load em up with assault troops, Flat out move them backwards so i ram my opponents vehicles and destroy my vehicle just so i can assault the first turn? that really seems like cheating.

No, not really, because you can't start the game closer than 18" (+1 Planck Length) from an enemy. And that's only if they infiltrate. Good Luck finding an Infiltrating vehicle.

Even if you did, Flat out Rhinos only move 18", so you would in fact be cheating by taking extra movement.

If you are going to try and make a silly incorrect argument, at least TRY and do it right.

Why does the second paragraph of the Destroyed- explodes! description refer to the models in question as "the now disembarked passengers" then?

Hmmm?

Monster Rain wrote:Why does the second paragraph of the Destroyed- explodes! description refer to the models in question as "the now disembarked passengers" then?

Hmmm?

Because they are disembarked. This is not the same as being made to Disembark.

Gwar! wrote:Because they are disembarked. This is not the same as being made to Disembark.

So they can move or jump in another vehicle? Missed that.

More to read.

Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

Potentially. Disembarking has rules to follow, skipping those rules should mean the term should be avoided (See Instant Death queries for JotWW, NFW, etc. for reference). The issue really is Specific vs. General.
Which seems obvious, but is nonetheless up for debate.

I have yet to meet someone in person who thinks the explodes rules are NOT a more specific disembarkation, but they do--in fact--exist, and have a good point.

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

Yes, they can. When the vehicle explodes, they are placed in the space left. This is not the same as Disembarking, which requires you to be placed within 2" of the access points.

With enough vehicles then, infantry theoretically have no range limit? There is no restriction on how many times a single unit can embark per phase. . .

kirsanth wrote:With enough vehicles then, infantry theoretically have no range limit? There is no restriction on how many times a single unit can embark per phase. . .

Incorrect. Models may only move once per movement phase. Embarking is done as part of a units move, which means the unit has moved. As such, it cannot then move again to embark upon another transport.

Thanks, I knew I was missing something obvious.

Can you guys please stick to the point of the LRC and it has an assault ramp that allows you to assault after you disembark...


Also not this vehicle is in the space marine codex and if you read up under the lard raider crusader. Then you will find a section about assault ramp rules.

After this you will have a full understanding of how all this takes place.

Please remember we are talking about the LRC people and its listed in the SM codex.

Gwar! wrote:No, not really, because you can't start the game closer than 18" (+1 Planck Length) from an enemy. And that's only if they infiltrate. Good Luck finding an Infiltrating vehicle.

Even if you did, Flat out Rhinos only move 18", so you would in fact be cheating by taking extra movement.

If you are going to try and make a silly incorrect argument, at least TRY and do it right.

on my first turn after my opponents have moved i am less than 18" away from target vehicle.

Blood Angels rhinos are fast vehicles. they can move 18" they move 24" if they follow a road so on a cityscape map, i follow the road that my Blood angels rhino is on as well as the target vehicle, then i get a 24" move for my troops and then assault up to 6" more? 30 inches in one move with assault? yea that does not sound like cheating to me...(sarcasm)

Monster Rain wrote: Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

and Monster Rain has the right idea.

Gwar! wrote:Only for Wrecked.

and not only for wrecked, since p.66 Embarking and disembarking states "...[models] may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed." that does not say destroyed - Wrecked, that says destroyed. so if the transport is destroyed by any means they are forced to Disembark it is implied under Destroyed - Explodes that they have indeed disembarked. since they are forced to as noted on p.66

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

So they cannot be assaulted by the unit that destroyed the transport?
"Either result" is there just to confuse people and not actually part of the rules?
"Now disembarked" does not mean that the unit has completed "disembarking"?

etc.

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

Yes, by no longer being embarked. being embarked means one has boarded a 'transport' for a journey, disembarking is to remove or unload passengers or goods from a 'transport' if you remove the vehicle however - you have not disembarked (removing the cargo from the vehicle)

What I don't understand is how the inclusion of 'disembark' in the destroyed - wrecked results, is convincing people the the words absence from 'destroyed - explodes' is irrelivent.

Second Apparition wrote:
Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth.

I just don't buy that, RaW is not a effort in theatrical literature. To be disembarked means you disembarked.

Leez wrote:

Second Apparition wrote:
Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn
The power of man, for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth.

I just don't buy that, RaW is not a effort in theatrical literature. To be disembarked means you disembarked.

And it's that simple.

The answer is yes. Because you can be disembarked Which is having left a vehicle without making a Disembark move. The same you can have moved 6" you moved but you don't get a cover save the same as if you moved 24" on a bike. The state of being is the same the method of getting there is different.

ChrisCP wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

Yes, by no longer being embarked. being embarked means one has boarded a 'transport' for a journey, disembarking is to remove or unload passengers or goods from a 'transport' if you remove the vehicle however - you have not disembarked (removing the cargo from the vehicle)

What I don't understand is how the inclusion of 'disembark' in the destroyed - wrecked results, is convincing people the the words absence from 'destroyed - explodes' is irrelivent.

TheBlackVanguard wrote:The answer is yes. Because you can be disembarked Which is having left a vehicle without making a Disembark move. The same you can have moved 6" you moved but you don't get a cover save the same as if you moved 24" on a bike. The state of being is the same the method of getting there is different.

The explosion removes them from the vehicle.

and you are both totally ignoring the "forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed" on p.66 if the transport is destroyed the unit inside is forced to disembark this includes wrecked AND explodes.

also the rules on page 67 under disembarking say if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

DeathReaper wrote:
The explosion removes them from the vehicle.

and you are both totally ignoring the "forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed" on p.66 if the transport is destroyed the unit inside is forced to disembark this includes wrecked AND explodes.

also the rules on page 67 under disembarking say if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

And you, repeatedly, have ignored the large holes in your argument.

That sentence does not say they are forced to disembark. It says that they MAY be forced to disembark. A result clearly satisfied by the wrecked rules.
Continuing to claim that it forces them to use the disembarking rules (which is impossible, as well as unsupportable) despite it clearly not saying that is not making your arguments more convincing.

Those rules on page 67? They're for disembarking, an action which the passengers never performed and that you cannot show they have performed.
How anyone can read "After disembarking, these models may shoot (counting as moving), but may not assault" and say 'that doesn't only apply to disembarking models!' is beyond me.
Continually referencing these unapplicable rules (especially while misleadingly selectively quoting them) isn't proving your point either.

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
The explosion removes them from the vehicle.

and you are both totally ignoring the "forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed" on p.66 if the transport is destroyed the unit inside is forced to disembark this includes wrecked AND explodes.

also the rules on page 67 under disembarking say if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

And you, repeatedly, have ignored the large holes in your argument.

That sentence does not say they are forced to disembark. It says that they MAY be forced to disembark. A result clearly satisfied by the wrecked rules.
Continuing to claim that it forces them to use the disembarking rules (which is impossible, as has been shown) despite it clearly not saying that is not making your arguments more convincing.

Those rules on page 67? They're for disembarking, an action which the passengers never performed and that you cannot show they have performed.
Continually referencing unapplicable rules isn't proving your point either.

Read it again. "...May embark and then be forced to disembark IF their transport is destroyed." I.E. if their transport is destroyed they are FORCED to disembark. does not say May be forced to disembark.

Read disembark again, "a unit that begins its movement phase aboard a vehicle can disembark before or after it has moved"
the bullet point then says if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

and the explodes result says they suffer hits equal to the number of models embarked, and the surviving passengers (who by default have been forced to disembark, from what we learned earlier on p66) are placed where the vehicle used to be. (Hole addressed)

to try and assault, when you began the units movement embarked on a vehicle and the vehicle has moved, is cheating. unless it is an assault vehicle (since assault vehicle says you can assault out of it)

DeathReaper wrote:
Read it again. "...May embark and then be forced to disembark IF their transport is destroyed." I.E. if their transport is destroyed they are FORCED to disembark. does not say May be forced to disembark.

Okay, I read it again.
It still says "may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed"
It still does not say that they are forced to disembark for every destroyed result, or even for any of them. It simply gives them permission to, ovverriding the previous disallowance.

DeathReaper wrote:
Read disembark again, "a unit that begins its movement phase aboard a vehicle can disembark before or after it has moved"
the bullet point then says if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

I read it again.
It still says "may disembark, but not move any further". And the sentence after it still says "After disembarking, these models may shoot (counting as moving), but may not assault".
You havn't shown anything here that makes these rules somehow apply outside disembarking, sorry.

DeathReaper wrote:
and the explodes result says they suffer hits equal to the number of models embarked, and the surviving passengers (who by default have been forced to disembark, from what we learned earlier on p66) are placed where the vehicle used to be. (Hole addressed)

How, exactly? The fact that the passengers are embarked before the explosion was never in question, and proves nothing.
Then saying they "have been forced to dismbark" like you've proven it (which is the entire point of contention, and still wholly unproven) and using that as your proof is just... no.

TheBlackVanguard wrote:The answer is yes. Because you can be disembarked Which is having left a vehicle without making a Disembark move. The same you can have moved 6" you moved but you don't get a cover save the same as if you moved 24" on a bike. The state of being is the same the method of getting there is different.

But no one is claiming anything of the sort, and moving 6" is very different from moving 24". The discussion is whether models being embarked on a vehicle, and the rules referring to them as "disembarked" in the situation in which they find themselves, have in fact "disembarked."

The difficulty is in telling someone that disembarked =/= disembarked.

Inside a vehicle to no longer inside a vehicle = disembarked, as outlined on page 67 in both Vehicle Destroyed descriptions.

Monster Rain wrote:
But no one is claiming anything of the sort, and moving 6" is very different from moving 24". The discussion is whether models being embarked on a vehicle, and the rules referring to them as "disembarked" in the situation in which they find themselves, have in fact "disembarked."

The difficulty is in telling someone that disembarked =/= disembarked.

Inside a vehicle to no longer inside a vehicle = disembarked, as outlined on page 67 in both Vehicle Destroyed descriptions.

?Are you intentionally ignoring answers to you questions, or was it rhetoric and you've already made up your mind?

ChrisCP wrote:
Yes, by no longer being embarked. being embarked means one has boarded a 'transport' for a journey, disembarking is to remove or unload passengers or goods from a 'transport' if you remove the vehicle however - you have not disembarked (removing the cargo from the vehicle)

What I don't understand is how the inclusion of 'disembark' in the destroyed - wrecked results, is convincing people the the words absence from 'destroyed - explodes' is irrelivent.

Again disembation is a process if one does not follow that process one hasn't disembarked, if you can show me anywhere in the 'Destroyed - explodes' section where they follow a disembarking process?

Guys - give up, there are only so many ways you can ask people to show why, when a unit has not followed ANY of the rules for Disembark, they are prohibited from assaulting as if they HAD used the rules for Disembarking.

You can be disembarked (as in, no longer on a vehicle) despite having never followed the Disembark rules. This is so obviously true yet apparently not for some.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guys - give up, there are only so many ways you can ask people to show why, when a unit has not followed ANY of the rules for Disembark, they are prohibited from assaulting as if they HAD used the rules for Disembarking.

You can be disembarked (as in, no longer on a vehicle) despite having never followed the Disembark rules. This is so obviously true yet apparently not for some.

I thought mostly it became pointless back on page one when people tried to claim ". . . that disembarking means leaving a vehicle, but that leaving a vehicle is not disembarking, despite th[e] fact that having left a vehicle you have disembarked . . ." by arguing imaginary Font Size, non-existent Character Capitalization, and Relativism.

Disembark is a rule set for how you exit a vehicle. That is capitalised as it has a specific function in the game (for example it is a *move*, and explodes is not a move but a placement)

Disembarked is the state of no longer being in a vehicle, but you do not need to have followed the Disembark rules for this to happen - as in Destroyed - Explodes where you follow not one single rule for disembark.

Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

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

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

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

Do we have an echo in here?

We have told you time and time again. To be disembarked is NOT THE SAME as Disembarking.

I'm with Gwar! on this one.

If you are disembarked, you have no necessarily performed the action of disembarking.

You can be "no longer inside of" a vehicle without having exited the vehicle. If the vehicle no longer exists around you, but you never performed the willful action of exiting it, therefore you may be described as "disembarked," but you never were "disembarking."

It's a minor point of semantics and open to interpretation, but I personally feel that infantry that just had their vehicle disappear from around them may assault if they pass their pinning test.

I think the bottom line here is, "discuss it with your opponent or TO to avoid getting the cold shoulder from either."

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

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

Do we have an echo in here?

We have told you time and time again. To be disembarked is NOT THE SAME as Disembarking.

Well, see, you'd have to have the authority to totally change the definition of words for that gimmick to work. So yes, you've stated your opinion, but it is wrong.

I agree that it's not the normal method of disembarking, but the models go from inside a vehicle to outside a vehicle and are referred to as "disembarked" in the rule that I've quoted two sentences later.

SaintHazard wrote:I think the bottom line here is, "discuss it with your opponent or TO to avoid getting the cold shoulder from either."

Hey now! We have reached an accord!

It does not follow the defined process of Disembark, so any restrict related to following the Disembark process is irrelevant.
As has been explained many times MR you are wrong...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Disembark is a rule set for how you exit a vehicle. That is capitalised as it has a specific function in the game (for example it is a *move*, and explodes is not a move but a placement)

Disembarked is the state of no longer being in a vehicle, but you do not need to have followed the Disembark rules for this to happen - as in Destroyed - Explodes where you follow not one single rule for disembark.

Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

Disembarking (as the proper noun for the rule) uses disembarking the action for it's definition. At no point in the definition of Disembarking does is fail to define leaving a vehicle as the act of disembarking, mostly by using the word deploy.

In the section on Vehicle - Explodes! it refers to placing (several people including you note the use of the word "place" instead of the word "deploy") the model in a certain location, this simply modifies the allowed location(s) to on the one hand disembark on the other hand to be placed (I think the part in italic accurately describes both sides), i.e. where the vehicle was instead of "within 2" of a door".

So, the question then is: "Is placing a model that was in a vehicle on the table mean you have deployed it?" I think this is a fair description of the point at which the contention enters the topic. I am of the opinion place = deploy and you are of the opposite, that place /= deploy. In all fairness I think the onus is on proponents of the side I am on to prove place = deploy and not on your side.

Lets look for the definition of the action "deploy" then. "Once all of the units have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving it onto the table as described later. Then he picks another unit and deploys it, and so on until all units are on the table. The player may then proceed to move his other units as normal."p94 BRB last paragraph left side. The meaning of the action deploy as defined by usage. Under the heading "Arriving from reserve" same page right side we have: "When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player's own table edge (unless it's deep striking or outflanking). 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. This means that it is incorrect to place a model on the board touching the edge and then move it - this wound mean it moved too far, especially in the case of a large vehicle."p94 BRB That's a bit shaky how about one more? Under the heading "Deep Strike" page 95: "Roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deply them as follows. [paragraph break] First place one model from a the unit anywhere on the table . . . "p95 BRB end of first/start of second paragraphs. Subsequent paragraphs do go on to interchange "place" and "deploy".

"Deploy", "moves onto the table", and "places" are used interchangeably. Ultimately the word deploy is not a Proper Noun lacking correct capitalization but just regular english word used instead of a different regular english word, e.g. place.

You can not be placed on the board from off the board (be it from reserve or from vehicle) without deploying, you can not deploy from a vehicle without disembarking, and you can not be disembarked without disembarking as governed by Disembarking with the additional modification Vehicle - Explodes! adds to it. Placed on the board by explosion, deployed by explosion, disembarked by explosion.

Macbeth should get his money back, that apparition was incompetent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As has been explained many times MR you are wrong...

Your continued insistence on this isn't really helping convince me. Bare Assertion fallacies rarely do.

Anyway, considering your entire argument is based on semantic distortion of the word "disembark" I don't really see this being resolved.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guys - give up, there are only so many ways you can ask people to show why, when a unit has not followed ANY of the rules for Disembark, they are prohibited from assaulting as if they HAD used the rules for Disembarking.

You can be disembarked (as in, no longer on a vehicle) despite having never followed the Disembark rules. This is so obviously true yet apparently not for some.

+1

I'm sure my movement example would work, but they unfortunately thought I was an idiot and arguing about it as a separate issue.

MR - you missed out all the points explaining why you are wrong, and simply quoted out of context. Bravo, you get one internets!

Place is not a move, Disembarking froma vehicle is. Just that is enough to show the two are not the same.

Just my 2c:

I think that the passengers are not disembarked when their vehicle explodes. Think about it.
They are not getting out of the vehicle; the vehicle is just ceasing to exist in a coherent form.
They are standing in a transport at one moment, and in a crater the next. It was not them who did the leaving.

Also the 'Destroyed - Wrecked' result clearly states that any passengers ''must immediately disembark'',
while in the 'Destroyed - Explodes' result there is a marked absence of the same wording.

However, I think that this really doesn't matter. Unless your own transport somehow explodes
during your turn, the discussion is moot. (By the way, does anybody know how your transport could
explode during your own turn?)

When the transport explodes, it will very, very likely be in your opponent's turn. If your opponent assaults the passengers,
they can fight back, and your enemy will likely be reduced to Initiative 1 for assaulting through difficult terrain (the crater.)

In the very likely case that the transport exploded during your opponent's turn, you may assault freely during your own turn
(assuming, of course, that you do not fire RF or Heavy weapons, or incur other assaulting prohibitions, and also that you are not locked in combat).
This is because, regardless of whether you disembarked or not, you did it during your opponent's turn, not during your own.
Since you did not disembark during your turn, you may assault during your turn.

Cayar wrote:(By the way, does anybody know how your transport could explode during your own turn?)

Ramming. Pie-Plate Scattering. Magic.

Edit: Oh, and Death or Glory.

Hmm. I had not considered those possibilities. Thanks.

Almost a year and not much has changed.

Explodes gives rules to delineate how to disembark models. It is correct to assume they are not the same rules, or they would not need reprinted.
The repeated(ly glossed over) implication is that "(either result)" is not a rule.
No one has pointed out why--Gorkamorka came closest to convincing me with:

Gorkamorka wrote:Are you saying that this language ovverides the actual language in the explodes result rules? Explodes does not use disembarking.

To which the obvious answer was, "no, you have it backwards". The actual language in "Wrecked" is used to disembark models from "either result"--one of which happens to use the less specific, more general rules for all disembarkation.

Also, has anyone on the "Not disembarking" side said whether the unit can be assaulted by the unit that shot the transports?
Or (much less likely) is the squad that fires allowed to shoot at the dis. . .no longer embarked squad?
If so, aplogies for missing it.

Gwar! wrote:

Cayar wrote:(By the way, does anybody know how your transport could explode during your own turn?)

Ramming. Pie-Plate Scattering. Magic.

Edit: Oh, and Death or Glory.

And Deepstrike (looking at you, landraiders)!

All that said, I play it however my opponent reads it.
The rules have no bearing on my army.

kirsanth wrote:The actual language in "Wrecked" is used to disembark models from "either result"--one of which happens to use the less specific, more general rules for all disembarkation.

No, the two results' effects on passengers are mutally exclusive.

kirsanth wrote:
Also, has anyone on the "Not disembarking" side said whether the unit can be assaulted by the unit that shot the transports?
Or (much less likely) is the squad that fires allowed to shoot at the dis. . .no longer embarked squad?
If so, aplogies for missing it.

p. 67, Col. 2, Para. 6. The firing unit may not fire on both the transport and then the passengers. It may however assault the passengers if it is allowed.
EDIT: It should be noted that the above line is a paraphrase.

Cayar wrote:p. 67, Col. 2, Para. 6. The firing unit may not fire on both the transport and then the passengers. It may however assault the passengers if it is allowed.
EDIT: It should be noted that the above line is a paraphrase.

Editing as I totally miswrote that.
The assault part specifies now disembarked passengers.

The shooting part says the occupants cannot "then" be shot seperately.

Regarding the topic's actual question: The unit may assault at if it disembarks from any of the vehicle's access points. The discussion at hand is relevant, since if the rules are interpreted that you are disembarked from the vehicle on an explodes result, then you certainly aren't disembarking from one of the access points, and as such you can't assault.

Kirsanth: Destroyed - wrecked and Destroyed - explodes! are distinct separate paragraphs and there is no cross-referencing between them. One is not a special case of the other. "Either result" is something you must specify, I can't find those words in that context.

The unit which is now out of the vehicle is not treated any differently from the point they leave the vehicle than other units that are represented on the board. You do not need and you do not get special permission to assault this unit.

Edit: yes, it did take more than 20 minutes to formulate this reply

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

That is a philosophical question. Let me pose counter-questions. Answer them with exceeding care and reflect on why you answered and, above all, how you answered:

Can a model be deployed on the table without first deploying?
Can something be dead without first dying?
Can a person live without first being born?

Mahtamori wrote:

Kirsanth: Destroyed - wrecked and Destroyed - explodes! are distinct separate paragraphs and there is no cross-referencing between them. One is not a special case of the other. "Either result" is something you must specify, I can't find those words in that context.

The unit which is now out of the vehicle is not treated any differently from the point they leave the vehicle than other units that are represented on the board. You do not need and you do not get special permission to assault this unit.

The note on page 67 covers both of those.
"However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by an ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers."

Units that shoot can only assault the unit they shot--except in this case they are allowed to shoot the "now disembarked" passengers.
So either they cannot be assaulted, or they disembarked.

Mahtamori wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

That is a philosophical question. Let me pose counter-questions. Answer them with exceeding care and reflect on why you answered and, above all, how you answered:

Can a model be deployed on the table without first deploying?
Can something be dead without first dying?
Can a person live without first being born?

You must first delineate the meaning of deploy, deploying, dead, dying, live, and born with respect to the questions as asked (please don't and stay on topic by using "disembarked" and disembarking") in the same fashion that Disembark, Disembarking, and Disembarked have been in this thread via the BRB and dictionary with respect to the specific topic at hand, assaulting after explodes. The BRB interchanges "place", "deploy", and "moves onto the table" in later sections of the book. In the Disembarking section the word "deploy" alone is used, but so what? We do not have license to imagine the word has any meaning other then the standard dictionary ascribes to it as appropriate to the context of 40K and the unit/transport combo in the absence of RaW changing its meaning. RaW does clarify it's meaning though, by re-enforcing it through the use of equivalent words/phrases later on, one of which is also used in Vehicle - Explodes!

@ kirsanth: I knew it was in there but I couldn't find it. Can you give me the page number for only being allowed to assault what you've shot so I can mark it in my physical copy (acrobat reader doesn't allow it in my electronic one :( )?

Leez wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

That is a philosophical question. Let me pose counter-questions. Answer them with exceeding care and reflect on why you answered and, above all, how you answered:

Can a model be deployed on the table without first deploying?
Can something be dead without first dying?
Can a person live without first being born?

You must first delineate the meaning of deploy, deploying, dead, dying, live, and born with respect to the questions as asked (please don't and stay on topic by using "disembarked" and disembarking") in the same fashion that Disembark, Disembarking, and Disembarked have been in this thread via the BRB and dictionary with respect to the specific topic at hand, assaulting after explodes. The BRB interchanges "place", "deploy", and "moves onto the table" in later sections of the book. In the Disembarking section the word "deploy" alone is used, but so what? We do not have license to imagine the word has any meaning other then the standard dictionary ascribes to it as appropriate to the context of 40K and the unit/transport combo in the absence of RaW changing its meaning. RaW does clarify it's meaning though, by re-enforcing it through the use of equivalent words/phrases later on, one of which is also used in Vehicle - Explodes!

Please stay on topic. My questions are rhetorical, not literal.

Being disembarked does not, by any means, constitute that you have taken the actions of disembarking. It's language, not computer syntax.

Actually, when the term philosophical came up I took stock of what I was wasting my time doing and did something else.

Disembarked = Disembarked. To suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, bearding. Discuss it with your opponent, OP. If that fails, have your TO or LGS house rule it. Good night, and good luck.

Mahtamori wrote:@ kirsanth: I knew it was in there but I couldn't find it. Can you give me the page number for only being allowed to assault what you've shot so I can mark it in my physical copy (acrobat reader doesn't allow it in my electronic one :( )?

Page 33, under Disallowed Assaults.

Mahtamori wrote:
Being disembarked does not, by any means, constitute that you have taken the actions of disembarking. It's language, not computer syntax.

Exactly, if ones was rendered vehicaless by say, a hoard of cremite-termites or some beam weapon that broke down molecular bonds - vehicle gone but no-one disembarked.

And let alone the entire lack of the word in the rule in questien

Yeah, but remember - disembarked = disembarked! [and other useless statements]

The process of disembarking is clearly defined, and also counts as movement. PLacement is not movement and, just from that shows how it is not disembark.

Trying to apply common english definitions to explicit game mechanics is not the way to play the game.

We could all pull up from a variety of sources from online dictionaries exactly what disembark means. However the only true definition of what disembark means, as far as playing Warhammer 40k, is what the BRB tells us it means.

True Brother Ramses. Could you, pehaps, put that thought into the context of this discussion and explain how it applies to the situation at hand?

ChrisCP wrote:True Brother Ramses. Could you, pehaps, put that thought into the context of this discussion and explain how it applies to the situation at hand?

As much as people want to say that a unit out of an exploded Land Raider have "disembarked" per the English definition, they have not DISEMBARKED per the BRB definition. They are free to assault taking into account that they are now in difficult terrain and must roll accordingly.

Thanks!

It occurs to me and I now find it strange that people are arguing that Vehicle - Explodes! is not disembarking but that Vehicle - Wrecked is, after all it's been so "convincingly" argued that disembarking is not disembarking.

"Disembarking the rule" : tells us to deploy the models on the table. It does not tell us to place, it does not tell us to disembark, it tells us to deploy. It tells us that deploying models on the table from a vehicle is definition of the rule: Disembarking. I'll quote it here "When the unit disembarks, each model is deployed within . . ."p67 BRB. It never says "When the model disembarks, each model is disembarked within . . .".

Vehicle - Explodes!: tells us to place the models on the table. Note it does not say deploy.

Vehicle - Wrecked: tells us to disembark the models, note it does not say deploy and we've established that disembarking is not necessarily disembarking.

I suppose we could argue that disembarking is not disembarking but that disembarking is disembarking there would be four positions then:

1) Explodes is- and Wrecked is disembarking.
2) Explodes is not- and Wrecked is disembarking.
3) Explodes is- and Wrecked is not disembarking.
4) Explodes is not- and Wrecked is not disembarking.

It seems to me that the issue is not resolvable via RaW as long a disembarking is not necessarily disembarking and unfortunately, I don't think there is a "You make Da Intended Call" sub-forum for RaI discussions and the omnipresent context-boogeyman.

Confused by that last argument....

Wrecked tells you to disembark -- so you follow the rules for disembarking, including it counting as movement, etc. This IS "disembarking" the vehicle.

Explodes! tells you to place the models - and never uses the word disembark. It is not movement, unlike disembarking (and therefore you CAN be placed within 1" of an enemy) and does not follow any of the rules for disembarking (which would be impossible, as the vehicle is not "there" to disembark from - no access points nor hullt o measure to)

It is not that disembarking /- disembarking, it is that you can be uin the state of being disembarked despite never having followed the rules necessary to disembark. This shouldnt be a surprise when your vehicle blows up around you....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yeah, but remember - disembarked = disembarked! [and other useless statements.]

More useless than responding to quoted rules with "UR WRONG CUZ I SAID SO HURR"? I don't think so...

If you'd like to continue quoting me out of context and being a witch, by all means continue. I'm beyond caring.

+1 to the RAI sub-forum.

When a vehicle explodes dont you remove it and replace it with a crater (difficult terrain) and place the models in basically the spot where the vheicle was in difficult terrain and takes however many st 3 hits and you must pass a gut check or go to ground. Walkin out the door is the same as getting blown out. you still disembarked.

Yet another question to be referred to the most important rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Confused by that last argument....

Wrecked tells you to disembark -- so you follow the rules for disembarking, including it counting as movement, etc. This IS "disembarking" the vehicle.

Explodes! tells you to place the models - and never uses the word disembark. It is not movement, unlike disembarking (and therefore you CAN be placed within 1" of an enemy) and does not follow any of the rules for disembarking (which would be impossible, as the vehicle is not "there" to disembark from - no access points nor hullt o measure to)

It is not that disembarking /- disembarking, it is that you can be uin the state of being disembarked despite never having followed the rules necessary to disembark. This shouldnt be a surprise when your vehicle blows up around you....

You can not be in the state of disembarked without disembarking as per the definition of disembark in a dictionary, unless we are speaking two entirely separate languages that merely by coincidence happen to have a lot of identical sounding words with different meanings and identical grammar.

It's fine that some people think there is "disembarking as a rule" distinct from "the regular word disembarking", but that opens up a RaI argument as to which is used in Vehicle - Wrecked, "the rule" or "the word". In Vehicle - Explodes "the word" for "the rule" is not used but instead a functionally equivalent word for "the regular word disembarking" is. You seem to be in camp 2) Explodes is not- and Wrecked is disembarking, i.e. disembarking is not disembarking, but disembarking is disembarking.

I am not even in camp 1) where disembarking is disembarking and disembarking is disembarking because I think that the word disembarking is only ever used as "the word". Any act which is disembarking, whether it uses disembark, deploy (from a vehicle), place (from a vehicle), or etc. is governed by a set of rules which cover disembarking. Essentially that there is no rule called Disembarking, there simply are rules for disembarking and that any act of disembarking is governed by said rules for disembarking including any modifiers each particular occasion for disembarking engenders.

But we're all stuck in RaI, you, me, everyone else in this thread, the ambiguous language of topic make it unavoidable.

Monster Rain wrote:More useless than responding to quoted rules with "UR WRONG CUZ I SAID SO HURR"? I don't think so...

If you'd like to continue quoting me out of context and being a witch, by all means continue. I'm beyond caring.

+1 to the RAI sub-forum.

Your quoted "rules", which ignored the other BRB rules given in order to "prove" your side, had been already repeatedly debunked.

Well done on emoragequit thought. Bravo.

Orki wrote:Yet another question to be referred to the most important rule.

Or maybe someone would do something as bold as submit the query to the FAQ 'commitee' over at GW.

Expect a decision by the time 6th Ed is out...

Leez - You can most certainly can be no longer in a vehicle without having gotten out of the vehicle, if that vehicle removed itself from around you. Thus you have disembarked the vehicle without having to follow the rules for disembark.

Also you seem to believe that "place" is a modifier of the disembark rules, despite a) the word "disembark" never even going anywhere near the result, and b) this not being necessary - you are told, in a self contained ruleset, how to resolve the effect.

IT is not a modification of disembark but a complete and total replacement of it. Not ONE single rule is similar between Disembarking and the Explodes! result.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:More useless than responding to quoted rules with "UR WRONG CUZ I SAID SO HURR"? I don't think so...

If you'd like to continue quoting me out of context and being a witch, by all means continue. I'm beyond caring.

+1 to the RAI sub-forum.

Your quoted "rules", which ignored the other BRB rules given in order to "prove" your side, had been already repeatedly debunked.

Well done on emoragequit thought. Bravo.

I would only like to point out that there is no emoragequitting going on. I am incapable of getting angry about the disembarking rules of transport vehicles. I think your statement says a lot more about you than it does me.

Anyway, did you have anything further to say on the topic at hand? Because OT trolling is against forum rules IIRC.

In a vehicle to outside of a vehicle, and referred to in the next sentence as having "disembarked." My interpretation would be that they "disembarked".

MR - last post to you:

Well, given your poor use of swearing (the "witch" part of the quote is not the initially typed word) and the fact that your previous point contained absolutely nothing on topic whatsoever, in fact noithign of any worth at all apart from misquotes and quotes out of context, perhaps you should not raise the troll flag yourself. Pot and Kettle, at the very least, applies.

Your last sentence appears to be nonsense, despite the double edit, but I will attempt to respond: would you say a unit that didnt actually get out of their vehicle and instead the vehicle was removed from around them, actually performed the ACT of disembarking? Remember that disembarking requires them to perform an action, summed up in the rules for disembarking, that they never actually perform....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Leez - You can most certainly can be no longer in a vehicle without having gotten out of the vehicle, if that vehicle removed itself from around you. Thus you have disembarked the vehicle without having to follow the rules for disembark.

If you disembark you've followed the rules governing the action of disembarking as modified by the requirements added to it in the Vehicle - Explodes! section.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Also you seem to believe that "place" is a modifier of the disembark rules, despite a) the word "disembark" never even going anywhere near the result, and b) this not being necessary - you are told, in a self contained ruleset, how to resolve the effect.

It is not self contained. It modifies the rules governing the action of disembarking by changing the location the models are deployed/placed/disembarked on the table from that listed in the section on disembarking.

As I said you seem to be of the opinion that there is a rule called Disembarking which applies only to thing labelled disembarking. I am of the opinion that there are rules governing the act of disembarking and that any act of disembarking (i.e. any action of in a vehicle changing to not in a vehicle) follows those rule with modifications add by the particular occasion for disembarking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
IT is not a modification of disembark but a complete and total replacement of it. Not ONE single rule is similar between Disembarking and the Explodes! result.

Hmmm, I think we're at the "Yes it is." and "No it isn't." stage of an argument.

And I'd wager the thread will get locked soon because of the other business going on in here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:MR - last post to you:

Well, given your poor use of swearing (the "witch" part of the quote is not the initially typed word) and the fact that your previous point contained absolutely nothing on topic whatsoever, in fact noithign of any worth at all apart from misquotes and quotes out of context, perhaps you should not raise the troll flag yourself. Pot and Kettle, at the very least, applies.

It doesn't have to be your last post to me, if you'll be civil so will I.

I wasn't even posting in the thread anymore until your snarky little shot at me. Come on man, don't be obtuse. As for Pot and Kettle, maybe. But you started it.

/edit And I hope they don't lock the thread because of our little... warm discussion there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your last sentence appears to be nonsense, despite the double edit, but I will attempt to respond: would you say a unit that didnt actually get out of their vehicle and instead the vehicle was removed from around them, actually performed the ACT of disembarking? Remember that disembarking requires them to perform an action, summed up in the rules for disembarking, that they never actually perform....

The rules don't specify exactly how the models get out of the transport. Maybe it was removed from around them, maybe they ran down the assault ramp. All I know is that the rules refer to the models in the crater as having disembarked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:MR - last post to you:

Well, given your poor use of swearing (the "witch" part of the quote is not the initially typed word) and the fact that your previous point contained absolutely nothing on topic whatsoever, in fact noithign of any worth at all apart from misquotes and quotes out of context, perhaps you should not raise the troll flag yourself. Pot and Kettle, at the very least, applies.

Your last sentence appears to be nonsense, despite the double edit, but I will attempt to respond: would you say a unit that didnt actually get out of their vehicle and instead the vehicle was removed from around them, actually performed the ACT of disembarking? Remember that disembarking requires them to perform an action, summed up in the rules for disembarking, that they never actually perform....

You dont think that getting blown out is disembarking? you think you shoud get some sort of advantage for being in a vehicle that blows up? The whole reason you don't get to go through the actual disembark is you get blown up!!! hence the hits ,the difficult terrain,the gut check. I't doesn't matter how you twist the language. the actual disembark move or getting blown out is disembarking.

Except ,as stated, it follows none of the rules for disembarking given earlier (hell, it isnt even a MOVE, unlike disembark which IS a move) nor does it even HINT that it does, instead providing an entirely self contained mechanic (leez, we know it is self contained because at NO POINT do you need to refer to "disembarking" to work out how to fulfill the Explodes! result. that is the very definition of a self contained rule) on how to complete the result.

Do you truly believe that you disembark a vehicle when it in fact ceases to exist around you? How have you performed the action of disembark when you are an entirely passive character in the act of the vehicle ceasing to exist around you? Since you're arguing "real life" in an abstracted to all hell game, perhaps some consistency?

what are you talkin bout man. the vehicle ceased to exist around you? it blew the hell up and you were in it. abstracted to hell or not. it is meant to be a bad thing not some kind of advantage!

"It ceases to exist around you"
Puff puff pass.

and i have to pass on your take of this.

It Just means no doors to get in the way of the BLOOD FOR THE BLLOD GOD SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

Badandy wrote:what are you talkin bout man. the vehicle ceased to exist around you? it blew the hell up and you were in it. abstracted to hell or not. it is meant to be a bad thing not some kind of advantage!

"It ceases to exist around you"
Puff puff pass.

and i have to pass on your take of this.

And here we are again trying to make and change rules based on fluff.

RAW, guys. RAW, nothing stops you from assaulting when your Rhino just exploded around you. Again, assuming you pass your pinning test (or are exempt from taking one).

40k is not playable 100% RAW because of grey areas in the rules. if it was we wouldn't need a forum to make any calls because the RAW would cover everything clearly. You have to play RAW with a grain of salt. Everyone knows this. to be somewhat advantaged over guys who actually got to exit of their own will when your ride blew up is crazy talk. fluff or not! To be perfectly honest allowing an assualt after the explosion would be fluff. It doesn't say anywhere in your RAW that this is the case.

No, it wouldn't be fluff. RAW is very clear in this instance, you just have to know how to interpret RAW.

RAW does not specifically disallow assaults after "Explodes!" results. Assaults are allowed in the assault phase unless specific conditions do not allow it. Such as: RAW disallows assaults after disembarking. However, "Explodes!" results very clearly do not force you to disembark or perform any action that would disallow an assault. Therefore, troops may assault after their vehicle "Explodes!"

Applying any extra elements to this equation is house ruling it, or applying fluff.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except ,as stated, it follows none of the rules for disembarking given earlier (hell, it isnt even a MOVE, unlike disembark which IS a move) nor does it even HINT that it does, instead providing an entirely self contained mechanic (leez, we know it is self contained because at NO POINT do you need to refer to "disembarking" to work out how to fulfill the Explodes! result. that is the very definition of a self contained rule) on how to complete the result.

Do you truly believe that you disembark a vehicle when it in fact ceases to exist around you? How have you performed the action of disembark when you are an entirely passive character in the act of the vehicle ceasing to exist around you? Since you're arguing "real life" in an abstracted to all hell game, perhaps some consistency?

Except, as stated, it does follow the rules for disembarking given earlier (hell it is a MOVE, like disembark which IS a move) it does not HINT that is does, instead providing an non-self contained mechanic (nosferatu1001, we know it is a not self contained because at THE POINT you do need to reference to the rules governing disembarking to work out how to fufill the Explodes! result. It is the very definition of a non-self contained rule) on how to complete the result.

Do you truly not believe that you disembark a vehicle when it in fact ceases to exit around you? How have you not performed the action of disembark despite being entirely passive character in the act of the vehicle ceasing to exist around you? Since you're arguing "real life" in an abstracted to all hell game, perhaps some consistency?


Humour aside. It is not necessarily self contained, if your "there is a rule Disembarking" is correct then it is. If there is "a set of rules governing disembarking" then it is not self contained. I do believe that the definition of disembarking does not require the vehicle to continue it's existence and that you can be passive object when it occurs neither of those conflict with the definition of disembark. As to arguing "real life" in an abstracted game . . . you're as guilty of that as I am. We're arguing how the language was used in writing the rules and it's gotten to the point where only RaI can differentiate which is the correct way.

We've both been repeating ourselves over and over the last little while, which is why I'm not entirely convince we're both speaking the same language anymore.. "Is.", "Isn't.", "Is.", "Isn't." both of us claiming a version of RaW that only RaI acknowledge correct, this isn't a RaI forum and it's getting boring.

you just have to know how to interpret it. My point exactly. everyone who reads RAW interprets it their own way ie grey areas. I know i'm not alone in thinking you can't assualt out of an exploded vehicle. Just like people see it the other way around. and it basically comes down to this. you either take disembarking as the actual move or disembarking as it means in english to exit from. so therefore you call disembarking the actuall act of exiting a vehicle of your own will , or like i would guess most english speaking people would that you disembarked from the vehicle any time you exit. And getting blown out would be one helluva exit.

You actually just did exactly what I just said. By bringing English language definitions into this debate, you've brought in extra factors that were not there before, and therefore are house ruling it based on that.

The BRB does not define "disembark" the same way Oxford does.

By the BRB definition of "disembark," what you're doing when your transport explodes is not disembarking.

SaintHazard wrote:You actually just did exactly what I just said. By bringing English language definitions into this debate, you've brought in extra factors that were not there before, and therefore are house ruling it based on that.

The BRB does not define "disembark" the same way Oxford does.

By the BRB definition of "disembark," what you're doing when your transport explodes is not disembarking.

I realize how puerile I sound when I ask what is the BRB's definition of "is" is? But my point is the BRB has to demarcate special status to a word in order for that word to stop being a OED defined word and start being a technical term and in each case were the word is then used it must be clear which form is being used regular or technical. All the BRB does though is us disembark as a regualar word when tells us how and when we can disembark. Subject headings are just subject headings, and rules under later subject headings can modify those under previous ones, and the act of disembarking is always the act of disembarking. Disembarking, deploying, exiting from <vehicle>, placing on table from <vehicle>, etc., etc. are all the same thing.

Strictly speaking, not exactly.

Any word used in the BRB that has a very specific meaning exclusive to the game cannot be defined using real-world terms.

Allow me to present an example.

In real life, "shooting" is something you do when you pull the trigger on a firearm, release a bowstring, compress the release level on a crossbow, etc. It's a general term for releasing a projectile from an apparatus designed to propel that projectile directionally.

On the other hand, "shooting," in the context of 40k, is something that you do in the Shooting phase, requires a ballistic skill characteristic, a weapon profile, an origin model, and a target model. Nothing actually flies out of the model in a literal sense. The meaning does not correspond with the real world meaning of the term.

Disembarkation in 40k is similar. In real world terms, "disembarking" is something you do anytime you exit a vehicle. On the other hand, in the context of the game, disembarking is a willful action that includes several steps that are very clearly outlined in the BRB. You move your models out of the vehicle (most often represented by being off the board) and place them within 2" of an access point modeled on the vehicle, or within 2" of the hull in the case of emergency disembarkation. After they've disembarked, there are a series of rules that allow or disallow movement (whether the vehicle has moved), allow or disallow assault (whether the vehicle is open-topped or has a special rule allowing assaults after disembarking), and so on. The word "disembark" has a different meaning in the context of 40k than it does in the real world.

As a result, you cannot apply real world terms to any term given specific rules or requirements in the context of the game. To do so is to alter the rules based on real world situations, experiences, or knowledge. Or, as it's more commonly called, "house ruling."

So, in conclusion, disembarking is very different in 40k from its real world meaning, and when you are in a situation where you have not specifically disembarked, you cannot claim that you did so based on the fact that if that were a real Rhino, and those were real troops, in the real world, they'd have disembarked.

Leez wrote:
the BRB does though is us disembark as a regualar word when tells us how and when we can disembark.
...
Disembarking, deploying, exiting from <vehicle>, placing on table from <vehicle>, etc., etc. are all the same thing.

And right there is the leap of logic where you're wrong. That last point is unsupported, and is actually in direct conflict with your previous claim.

The BRB does tell us how to disembark, and tell us when we can. Explodes does not use any of the supplied rules for disembarking or tell us it is disembarking.
It's unbelievably simple. It's not disembarking, by the rules.

SaintHazard wrote:RAW is very clear in this instance, you just have to know how to interpret RAW.

That's kind of the issue.

The RAW, in this case, comes down entirely to interpretation. Just choosing one and claiming that to be the only possible interpretation of RAW rarely ends well.


Since this has just been going around in circles for a while now, I think we're done.