Posted By mauleed 08/04/2006 1:34 PM

That really makes sense to you? Becaus it's terrain and terrain has some of the properties of area terrain it's now area terrain? Interesting application of logic there buddy.

No wonder I win so much. I'm playing the handicapped.

I said it can be seen how it could be confusing, just like how people confuse drop pod rules with the deepstrike rules. Explosions leave difficult terrain, wrecks leave an area on the table with similar rules to area terrain. You even admit it has some of the properties of area terrain, and that can confuse people. Admitting it can be confusing is not the same as admitting you are confused by it, but way to show off that ego.

 

On topic I go with the picture from the BGB that shows what places you can deploy with little grey half circles. There is no room to decide the order of the wreck being there to deploy in so anyone on board should be forced to deploy on the area outside the vehicle.

Sorry, I forgot to mention the fact that since I believe wrecks are still vehicles and not terrain they can follow the rules for both (vehicles and wrecks). So, they can still disembark per the rules for disembarking from vehicles on page 62, but may be placed on top of the vehicle per the rules on page 68. A vehicle that isn't a wreck would be bound by only the rules on page 62. In other words, the vehicle is still there. It's just a wreck now.

Nope. The vehicle is DESTROYED. I'm assuming you understand the definition of the word without me posting it. A destroyed vehicle is gone, kaput, finito.

Or would you like to claim that wrecked vehicles still move, shoot and can be embarked upon?

Either way though, it allows us to utilize a step procedure and not try to assume everything happens simultaneously since that would force passengers disembarking from a vehicle that explodes to be hit by the vehicles explosion in addition to any other damage they may recieve. I don't think that's what GW intended either.

No, disembarking passengers would be hit by the exploding vehicle if they deployed before the explosion was resolved. If all of the damage results are done simultaneously then the passengers would not be hit by the destroyed result (just by the passengers wounding rule).

Under the Wrecks section on p.68 it refers to a 'wreck' as a "wrecked vehicle". Perhaps this passage implies that 'wrecked' is simply as a "state" of the vehicle (like imobilized or stunned) this problem becomes much simpler.

Its still technically a vehicle, so there is no problem disembarking form a non-vehicle
and Since the rules for disembarking from a vehicle are clear there is no problem on where they can go to (not on the vehicle) 

winterman: One persons stupid sucker is another's pure rock visionary

Augustus> If a squad is traveling in a transport that is destroyed can the survivors be placed in the area terrain generated by the wreckage of the vehicle (assuming their exit(s) are not blocked)?

mauleed> There is no area terrain generated by the wreckage of the vehicle. Why on earth would anyone think a wreck is area terrain?

Page 25, lists cover as area terrain, including wrecks/vehicles. Basically anything that has a 2d area, provides a cover save and/or is difficult terrain is area terrain, there's a big list on P25 Ed.

...

@Yakface

If a wreck and a vehicle are something different, as you imply, why is Wreck/Vehicle listed on P25 as synonymous?

Yakface> A destroyed vehicle is gone, kaput, finito.

Actually, only pen 6s cause that, (vehicle removal) otherwise the models are left on the table right?  There is no text "replace the destroyed vehicle with a wreck" in those results is there? Only replace the vehicle with a crater for Pen 6s (Ord 5 or 6) in the vehicle pen chart.  Technically, a wreck is still a vehicle, by page 26, albiet a non functional destroyed one. 

This also fits consistently with the wysiwyg LOS regarding vehicle sight rules if wrecks are played the same way.  If wrecks were not area terrain (and models on top were assumed to literally be there instead of within them) how could models gain a cover save? Wouldn't they essentially be exposed on top of the wreck instead?  Obviously since vehicle models can not be exploded into pieces when they are destroyed an abstract rule is presented to represent the models hiding in the wreck simulated by their placement on top of the intact model instead.

Furthermore, page 68 clearly defines it is possible to be on top of a wreck and get a cover save where it states "...provides a 4+ cover save for models on top of it..."

This supports the idea that it is possible to be on top of a wreck re-enforcing the idea of disembarking there.

Well, I don't think either side will convince the other of the state of the vehicle upon being wrecked.

However, yakface, I feel I must comment on the whole "simultaneous" issue. I would like to re-iterate that maybe I'm reading the BGB with too much of a skew toward logical steps but that's just how my brain works.

To me simultaneous would mean that the vehicle is hit, damage is done, resolved, and passengers disembarked. This wouldn't occur in the order I just listed them in, or any particular order at all. They would all happen at the same time. So, if the result of the damage is vehicle explodes, and there are disembarked passengers within the kill zone, they are hit. This is only because they are disembarked at the same time the damage is resolved. It wouldn't make any difference what order the player does these steps in because they are all simultaneous in the game space. Another example would be if two models have the same initiative. They attack simultaneously regardless of which player throws the dice first or what models are removed as casualties. Sometimes, players actually run into instances where their dead models actually score kills because they didn't die before or after they attacked, but simultaneously.

And maybe I'm nitpicking and you're going for something else altogether. If that's the case then forgive me for trying to read too much into the word "simultaneous." Maybe, we can start a new phrase "pseudo-simultaneous." Then, we can all laugh at why I'm posting at 1:30 AM on Saturday.

In response to augustus, who said:

"Page 25, lists cover as area terrain, including wrecks/vehicles. Basically anything that has a 2d area, provides a cover save and/or is difficult terrain is area terrain, there's a big list on P25 Ed."

Again, I'm not sure what escapes you here. Yes, all area terrain is cover, but not all cover is area terrain. Surely at some point in grade school logic they explained to you that while all Collies are dogs, not all dogs are therefore collies. This is, without question, the simplest logical fallacy to identify.

If you like, I can continue the rudimentary lesson in logic, but I think you're going to feel rather silly if I do.

Page 25, lists cover as area terrain, including wrecks/vehicles.

Page 25 does no such thing. In fact, Area Terrain and Wrecks are not mentioned in the same sentence at all on page 25. The only reference to wrecks is in the chart showing the save for each different type of cover.

If a wreck and a vehicle are something different, as you imply, why is Wreck/Vehicle listed on P25 as synonymous?

So... you're saying that wrecks are Area Terrain, and Vehicles and Wrecks are the same thing... So Vehicles are Area Terrain?


Wrecks and Vehicles are not 'listed as synonymous'

They are simply included in the same chart entry because they both grant the same cover save.

If wrecks were not area terrain (and models on top were assumed to literally be there instead of within them) how could models gain a cover save?

They gain a cover save because the rule on page 68 specifically says they do... because the vehicle model is not, as you pointed out, actually destroyed to make a pile of wreckage.

If the wreck were Area Terrain, there would be no need for page 68 to state that the models on top gain a 4+ cover save, since that would be already covered by the rules anyway.

mauleed> Again, I'm not sure what escapes you here. Yes, all area terrain is cover, but not all cover is area terrain. Surely at some point in grade school logic they explained to you that while all Collies are dogs, not all dogs are therefore collies. This is, without question, the simplest logical fallacy to identify.

The only cover that aren't area terrain are fences, walls and the like, single pieces with no bases essentially, it's all listed on page 25, I'm not making any reverse logic claims like you outlined.  There's simply a list on page 25, all the terrain on it is area terrain except for the "no base" items like walls.  There is no logical falicy.

mauleed> If you like, I can continue the rudimentary lesson in logic, but I think you're going to feel rather silly if I do.

Flattery will get you nowhere!  Continue your misconstrued juvenile attacks all you like, I can weather them easily.

I have an idea, make the counter logic case, if you can, and leave the incitement behind or leave the thread?

insaniak> Page 25 does no such thing. In fact, Area Terrain and Wrecks are not mentioned in the same sentence at all on page 25. The only reference to wrecks is in the chart showing the save for each different type of cover.

Wrecks and Vehicles are not 'listed as synonymous'

Yes, they are listed as synonymous, in the chart on page 25, at the bottom, they are listed as "vehicles/wreck". It is black and white.

insaniak> They are simply included in the same chart entry because they both grant the same cover save.

But they (vehicle/wreck) are on the same line, everything in the chart on the same line is a synonymous entry, it's clear by reading the chart, like ruins/walls buildings being equivalents, there are no entries that say "building/wreck/trench" for example.  The reason they are listed with slashes on the same line is clear in the text, because they are synonymous

insaniak> So... you're saying that wrecks are Area Terrain, and Vehicles and Wrecks are the same thing... So Vehicles are Area Terrain?

Your conclusion not mine.  I am saying wrecks are area terrain.

insaniak> If the wreck were Area Terrain, there would be no need for page 68 to state that the models on top gain a 4+ cover save, since that would be already covered by the rules anyway.

Not really insaniak, in the rules area terrain is described as something with a base, and loose scenic items on it that can be moved out of the way for models to be positioned.  When vehicles get destroyed and become area terrain there is no base to define the area, and the destroyed bits that would theoreticaly be scattered about it granting the cover can't be repositioned to allow a squads placement.  So wrecks need a special case rule.

Wreck give a cover save so you should be able to disembark on top. I agree with Glaive co and augustus and the rest. unfortunatly the others on this thread just think they play handicapped people who dont know the rules. More likely they dont see the rules their way so are therefore handicapped.

Augustus, you list two premises and a conclusion and I'll debunk it.

Otherwise I'm not wasting my time, as your claim is so obviously false on its face.

okay, pg. 68 BGB, Wrecks paragraph:

"It continues to block LOS as if it were intact but counts as difficult terrain for Inf. movement.

It counts as difficult terrain for vehicles with a higher frontal armor but is impassable terrain

for other vehicles. It provides a 4+ Cover Save for models on top of it or looking around it."


i think it a matter of timing. the vehicle gets popped, the troops leave the vehicle following

disembarking rules. they could get back on top of it on the next turn, and gain a 4+ cover

save. but not disembarking on top. if it were legal to do, you could normaly disembark on top,

not just when it's an emergency.

i don't see how we are calling a wrecked vehicle, Area Terrain. to me an "area" is a forrest.

Area terrain can be a forrest, or it can be anything defined before the game as area terrain, such as a building or water.

But a vehicle is never area terrain, even after it becomes a wreck.

Augustus

The only cover that aren't area terrain are fences, walls and the like, single pieces with no bases essentially, it's all listed on page 25,

And again, you're reading something that simply isn't on that page. Page 25 does NOT list what types of terrain are Area Terrain. The closest it gets is the chart listing the variuous cover saves, which simply lists the Sizes that the various terrain pieces are counted as if they are Area Terrain.

Yes, they are listed as synonymous, in the chart on page 25, at the bottom, they are listed as "vehicles/wreck". It is black and white

Which simply means that for the purposes of figuring out what cover save they provide, they are the same. It doesn't make automatically make them the same in any other way.

Your conclusion not mine. I am saying wrecks are area terrain.

And you're also saying that vehicles and wrecks are the same thing. You can't have it both ways... either they're the same, or they're not.

in the rules area terrain is described as something with a base, and loose scenic items on it that can be moved out of the way for models to be positioned

Do you even bother to check the rulebook before posting what you think it says? Because yet again, you're claiming it says something that it doesn't.

In 'the rules'... specifically page 17, under the heading 'Area Terrain'... Area Terrain is defined simply as a Terrain feature with a distinct boundary. This can be a base, or any other sort of distinct border. It even lists a couple of other ideas for terrain features without bases.

A wreck has a defined boundary. It doesn't need a base. If it counted as Area Terrain, the terrain feature would simply extend to the boundaries of the vehicle. No need for redundant rules entries repeating the rules for Area Terrain.


Beef:

Wreck give a cover save so you should be able to disembark on top.

Vehicles give a cover save as well. What does that have to do with being able to disembark on top?

Page 62 provides a chart that very clearly defines the disembarkation zone. If you think there is some rule that in some way invalidates this chart, feel free to post it.

what cover save do vehicles give?? i thought they just blocked line of sight?/

Have a look at Page 25 of your rulebook. Specifically at the table that shows cover saves for different obstacles... the one that we've been discussing over the last 2 pages.

Posted by beef on 08/06/2006 7:09 PM
what cover save do vehicles give?? i thought they just blocked line of sight?

And what happens when you can see a model over a vehicle? Because it is only the vehicle that blocks line of sight, not the empty air above it.

"And what happens when you can see a model over a vehicle? Because it is only the vehicle that blocks line of sight, not the empty air above it."

as if things aren't convoluted enough....

What's convoluted is pretending you don't see a Carnifex towering over a Rhino just because it's on the other side of the vehicle.

easy Ghaz.

i was only commenting on how the thread has taken another turn.

"What's convoluted is pretending you don't see a Carnifex towering over a Rhino just because it's on the other side of the vehicle."

that's not complicated, that's someone taking advantage of the rules.

i saw that it say 4+ but its for wreck/vehicles.  i always thought once the vehicle is destroyed it becomes a wreck and gives a 4+.  i never though the catual vehicle while intact gave a 4+ save.??  maybe to montrous creatures like carnifexs maybe.  as for blocking line of sight it would block line of sight to models smaller that it like infantry, bikes etc.  it would not block line of sight to a carnifex or a landraider.  the carnifex would get  a 4+ save and the landraider could roll for a obscured target.

it would not block line of sight to a carnifex or a landraider.

Nor would it block LOS to any smaller model that you can actually see at least a part of.

Being smaller does not automatically hide you from view. Troops in an elevated position can often see past vehicles.

The cover save applies to any model that is partially obscured by the vehicle.

Just to throw a kink in it, cover saves aren't dependent on being obscured by cover. They're now dependent on the shot going over cover. So if there's a size one rubble pile between you and your target, but 12" away from both of you, he still gets his 4" cover.

It's an odd change in 4th, but it's there.

Posted By mauleed 08/08/2006 6:46 AM

Just to throw a kink in it, cover saves aren't dependent on being obscured by cover. They're now dependent on the shot going over cover. So if there's a size one rubble pile between you and your target, but 12" away from both of you, he still gets his 4" cover.

It's an odd change in 4th, but it's there.

I've always played it that way, I thought it was obvious.

if a landraider is behind a rhino does the rhhino even though its smaller block line of sight? in the BBB its says vehichles block line of sight to other vehickles behind them.

Vehicles block LOS. The empty air above them does not.

If you can see the Land Raider, you can shoot it. It's that simple.

target priority would call for you to shoot at the Rhino first though.

pass the Ld test and then you could shoot at the Land Raider.

You don't need to pass a target priority check to shoot a large target like a land raider.

Posted By nobody 08/09/2006 7:36 AM
You don't need to pass a target priority check to shoot a large target like a land raider.

Unless there is another Large Target that is closer, such as the Rhino in the example.

i have lost the original reason for this post amongst the random madness

Here's a point that no one has mentioned. If you are disembarking from a vehicle you are MOVING AWAY from it regardless if you are forced to or are voluntarily disembarking. Why in the hell would you "disembark" back onto/into the vehicle?

Wrecks are not area terrain. No where are wrecks listed as such.

DaIronGob,  despite all the arguing I have done to the contrary I heard a great logical argument the other day in support of what you are claiming, it goes like this:

If they have to emergency disembark, and they do so into the wreck, aren't they essentially never leaving and staying in the vehicle while it blows up? You have to leave an exploding vehicle don't you. Aren't they trying to get out afterall?

I laughed, I had to agree.  But I like this debate. (I'm just afraid when Beef is on my side, his Caveman posting style is not very educated, don't be angry beef...  Augustus and Beef frend! )

DaIronGob> Wrecks are not area terrain.

OK... Then what are they?

DaIronGob> No where are wrecks listed as such.

What about page 25? What does that mean then?

They are wrecked vehicles that have specific rules of their own, which were previous posted in this thread. They are difficult terrain that block LoS as if they were still intact, meaning physical form of the vehicle not an area level.

Area terrain has levels to base who or what can see through or over. Wrecks do not have this.

The only reason you would disembark back into a vehicle is because of the game mechanic that forces passengers to be placed within 2" of the access points. Just like when you remove your models when they embark. It is simply a game mechanic. It doesn't mean they aren't on the table, but in order to play this game we must remove them from the table when they embark. In the same manner we must actually disembark the passengers from a wrecked vehicle into the wreckage. The passengers are not getting out, then geting back in. They are struggling in the wreckage, or helping teammates, or whatever never having gotten out of the vehicle at all. However, the game makes us take our models from off-table and place them there and it tells us the guidlines for doing it...kind of.

I agree, tht wrecks are not area terrain also.

The only reason you would disembark back into a vehicle is because of the game mechanic that forces passengers to be placed within 2" of the access points

And the diagram shows how to determine the measurements from the access points as OUTSIDE of the vehicle. Not inside it.

And the wrecks section tells us we can place models on top of a vehicle.

Vehicles that are not wrecked cannot have models stacked on top of them. This is covered by the rules earlier on that prevent stacking and is further reinforced by the diagram you mention. Once a vehicle becomes a wreck it is now subject to a further set of rules pertaining to vehicle wrecks.

So... they are not area terrain size level 3?

Nope. They are wrecked vehicles

 

Edit: spelling

Posted By Augustus 08/10/2006 12:12 PM
So... they are not area terrain size level 3?

Again, why would you think they are?

Are you assuming that model size equals terrain size? If so, you're mistaken.

Terrain of the same size is always "taller" than a model of the same size. This is why size 2 terrain blocks LOS between size 2 models.

So when you say that a size 3 vehicle becomes size 3 terrain, not only are you not basis your statement on any rule, but you're saying that the wreck is suddenly taller than the vehicle was.

Yes, I see it now, if they became size 3 area terrain then they would block los like woods. I concur that is completely wrong.  Vehicle LOS is as seen, as is wreck LOS, therefore it logically follows that they have to be a special case.

Thanks for the insight.

They aren't a 'special case'. They're just terrain.

When you play, are you only using area terrain? That's fine if you do, but be aware that not all terrain must be area terrain. You can always play terrain wysiwyg. That's very clearly in the book.

And the wrecks section tells us we can place models on top of a vehicle.

But the disembarking section shows that you can't do so when disembarking.

SO: You can place models on a wrecked vehicle... just not when disembarking from that wrecked vehicle.

We simply don't know that. The diagram that is causing the most grief here is showing the 2" valid area the marines are able to occupy when they are placed on the table. If they showed a full circle it would cause even more grief because then players would conveniently forget about the fact that you can't stack models, and we would be having this discussion right now in reverse. We can assume that the diagram is showing us an intact vehicle or we can assume the diagram is showing us a wrecked vehicle, but either way we are assuming. The text (including the text under the diagram) never prohibits us from placing disembarking troops on top of their vehicle. That is covered elsewhere.

The diagram that is causing the most grief here is showing the 2" valid area the marines are able to occupy when they are placed on the table.

Causing the most grief to your theories, not to the actual rules.

If they showed a full circle it would cause even more grief because then players would conveniently forget about the fact that you can't stack models, and we would be having this discussion right now in reverse.

But it doesn't so we don't even need to really go there or worry about it.

We can assume that the diagram is showing us an intact vehicle or we can assume the diagram is showing us a wrecked vehicle

A wrecked vehicle is still a vehicle, just wrecked. Assume all you want but there is no reason to believe that this is an "either/or" assumption in regards to disembarking. Facts are that you either disembark or you don't, there are no specifics as to having disembarked voluntarily using the diagram or involuntarily. So no reason to assume that the vehicle disembarked from is wrecked or not.

The text (including the text under the diagram) never prohibits us from placing disembarking troops on top of their vehicle. That is covered elsewhere.

Except for the diagram showing you clearly where to measure OUTSIDE the vehicle.

The text doesn't prohibit the troops from climbing on top of each other when disembarking either, that doesn't mean that they can.

 

EDIT: spelling and grammar

D.I.G.: "The text doesn't prohibit the troops from climbing on top of each other when disembarking either, that doesn't mean that they can."

My point was that they needn't prohibit anything like that since the rules on stacking models are already covered at this point and are quite clear. Later on in the book it actually gives us a caveat to the rules allowing models to stack on wrecked vehicle models.

As I've said before, I think the best way to play it from a sportsmanship method is to just place them outside of the wreckage. However, when taking a RAW approach we must only use the rules that are given to us.

With that in mind we can now argue that the text as well as the diagram are to be taken as RAW. No problem, even though the diagrams in the book have been proven to contradict the text before. So, if troops must not only be placed within 2" of an access point AND with their base touching the semi-transparent circles that are illustrated for the Rhino only the troops can still be disembarked on top of their wrecked vehicle as long as they bases touch the edge of the semi-transparent disembark circles, they are within 2" of it (impossible not to be), and are in coherency. There can be no counter-argument to this since it is using all of the available rules, diagrams, and wishfull thinking at the same time.

AND with their base touching the semi-transparent circles that are illustrated for the Rhino only the troops can still be disembarked on top of their wrecked vehicle as long as they bases touch the edge of the semi-transparent disembark circles, they are within 2" of it (impossible not to be),

Negative. Outside the vehicle does not = "Touching the transparent grey half circle while sitting inside the vehicle".

The transparent half circles are on the OUTSIDE of the vehicle, not inside.

It doesn't matter. If you'll notice the marines bases (according to the picture) only need to be touching the semi-trasparent half circle. So, now we can place our marines on top of the wrecked vehicle as long as their bases touch the semi-transparent half circle. In other words, on the edge. Easy and clean.

so basically they can when the vehickle blows up climb on top of it. ok so say the rhino blows up and some of the guys end up on the top hatch as they can always shoot out from it, is it not possible that they get blown onto the top. Area terain is woods and tank traps and ruins. as you can see into them 6inches, cant see through them to the other side etc. so does a wreck not count as area terrain??

Damn I am fast getting a reputaion for being illiterate. : (

@ beef-we've already established wrecks are not area terrain.

@ Glaive-And the picture shows them standing partially ON the vehicle? No it doesn't because they have to get OUT of the vehicle. One disembarks FROM a vehicle, i.e. gets OUT of it. One does NOT disembark back into or onto the vehicle or wreck.

Also according to your interpretation then if I have say a daemon prince assault a Chimera's rear and it gets destroyed the models inside the vehicle that are forced to disembark aren't destroyed because they can disembark back into the vehicle away from the access point up to two inches?. Wrong.

I'll make this quick:

dis·em·bark    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (dsm-bärk)
v. dis·em·barked, dis·em·bark·ing, dis·em·barks
v. intr.

1. To go ashore from a ship.
2. To leave a vehicle or aircraft.

If you are leaving the vehicle, you aren't still inside it,on it, onthe wreckage. I know they define the terms of words in the book and they do so consistently with the real word. If your models are still on the wreck they didn't disembark.

Darn it! I must be putting this out there in a way that makes it hard to follow. I do that alot so I apologize. I'm going to try to break it down again.

For the purposes of this post I will declare a few things:

1. The half circles are defined as "valid disembarkation area" even though the book never defines them as such it does appear that that was the intent.

2. Vehicle Wrecks are not terrain of any type. They can be moved over LIKE difficult terrain. They provide a cover save LIKE terrain. However, they aren't terrain. They are vehicles that are wrecked, a class all their own.

3. When a vehicle is destroyed and passengers are forced to disembark there is a step process. In other words the vehicle is hit, damage is resolved, and passengers disembark. It happens in that order, not simultaneously.

4. Models can be placed on top of a vehicle wreck. The rulebook doesn't actually say this, but it does say that models on top gain a 4+ save. We can argue about wether or not models can actually be placed onto a vehicle wreck later.

If you disagree with any of these declarations then there is no need to read further because everything that follows is based on them.

1. The rules tell us that models cannot stack on top of each other so when a unit disembarks from a vehicle (not wrecked) the models cannot be placed on top of it.

2. The diagram shows the bases of a few of the marines splitting the 'valid disembarkation area' so the bases do not actually have to be "within" the area. They can simply be touching the area. This section of the rules doesn't say the models can't be placed on top of the vehicle because this has already been forbidden earlier in the rules.

3. So, if models can be placed on top of a wreck and they only have to be touching the 'valid area of disembarkation' they can certainly be touching the edge of the vehicle that the access point is on and satisfy any and all of the criterea for a valid disembarkation.

D.I.G. - With this in mind your conclusion would be false. The passengers would attampt to disembark on top of the chimera touching the rear edge of the vehicle. They would find themselves within 1" of the deamon since (I'm assuming) he's in BTB with the rear of the vehicle. If the models can be placed on top, with their edge touching the 'valid area of disembarkation', in coherency, AND not within 1" of an enemy then they are safe.

Also - "on top of" is not the same as "inside." Models on top of their wrecked vehicle are not inside it. Only embarked models are ever inside their vehicle.

1. Agree
2. Agree.
3. Disagree. This cannot be the step process, because there is no way to exit a wrecked vehicle - it has no access points. Thus, the order has to be - vehicle is hit; determination is made on waht effect will happen to the vehicle; passengers disembark and suffer the consequences; then damage to the vehicle resolves. That's the only way for models to leave the vehicle, is when it is still a vehicle.
4. Agree.
Therefore, based upon the above, as you cannot stack models on other models, and the vehicle must exist at the time of disembarkation, you cannot embark on top of the vehicle.

I meant "disembark on top of the vehicle." oops.

Earlier in this thread there is a discussion about how to handle the actual process of emergency disembarkation, but I will try to summarize it.

The only reasons for an emergency disembark are 'vehicle suffers penetrating hit but isn't destroyed' or 'vehicle is destroyed.' Since there is no possible way to determine either of these outcomes without resolving the damage to the vehicle the passengers must disembark after the damage is resolved. It was proposed that all of these events happen simultaneously, but that still doesn't make very much sense. Either way, the outcome of an exploding vehicle would be to actually catch the disembarking passengers in the explosion causing them to basically take double damage. That may be the intent, but it seems overly harsh. None of that works from a logic perspective anyways.

"If the models can be placed on top, with their edge touching the 'valid area of disembarkation', in coherency, AND not within 1" of an enemy then they are safe."

that's where you lose me. if you are doing an Emergency Disembark you can't get on top of the vehcle.

the had to leave. if they can stay in it, why would the be able to get onto it?

because the vehickle is destroyed. forgget emergancy disembarking due to a pen shot. we are discussing destroyed results. obviously if the vehicke is not destroyed they will be in the disembarked zone as they wont climb on top of the vehicle. if destroyed then they can be on top as tecknically the vehicke is no longer there, its a wreck so its broken peices of vehicle that they can stand on top of, hide behind etc.

I agree with Glaive

because the vehickle is destroyed. forgget emergancy disembarking due to a pen shot.

The problem with making that distinction is that there are no seperate rules for disembarking in specific situations. There is only a single set of Disembarking rules that apply all the time.

So either models can disembark on top of the vehicle/wreck, or they can't. The same rules will always apply when you disembark, since there is only the one set of rules for disembarking.

I'm going to try to make this as simple as I can. There seem to be two big myths perpetrating around this thread that simply are not possible in actual gameplay.


Myth #1: Vehicle Wrecks are still "vehicles" and therefore have access points.

Vehicle Wrecks cannot still be vehicles if you want the game of 40k to function. Vehicle Wrecks don't have Access Points because they are not vehicles (in the game sense, even though the model may still be on the table). If Vehicle Wrecks were still "vehicles" then they would also be able to shoot, move, embark/disembark passengers etc.

In essence, destroying a vehicle would mean absolutely nothing except for the damage to the passengers, and the ability for models to move on top of the vehicle now.

Vehicle Wrecks simply cannot stil be "vehicles"; meaning they do not have Access Points anymore then they have an Armor Value, weapons, Fire Points, etc.

The only properties that Vehicle Wrecks have (based on what the rules give them) is that they block LOS as a vehicle, and models on or behind them gain a cover save. That's ALL that wrecks do. Period.


Myth #2: I can disembark my passengers directly into the wreck because it's no longer a vehicle model.

While (as I have shown above) a Vehicle Wreck indeed cannot possibly be considered a vehicle model anymore, there is one huge fundamental problem with this myth. And that is: Models must disembark from Access Points and only vehicle models have Access Points.

So unless you want to play that models can never disembark from a destroyed vehicle, you must accept that the passengers disembark while the vehicle is still a vehicle model (and not a wreck). I'm going to leave the issue of passengers getting hit "twice" by an exploding vehicle out of this, because honestly it has no bearing on this particular part of the issue.

If passengers are indeed disembarking from a vehicle model (which you must accept otherwise there are no Access Points on a wreck for them to disembark from), then they cannot per the rules be placed on top of the vehicle model.

There simply isn't any other logical way to play the game people!

*Wrecks cannot have Access Points unless they are still vehicles (which would mean they could still move around and shoot too!).
*Access points are needed to disembark, therefore we must play that models disembark while the vehicle is still a vehicle model.
*Models cannot be placed on top of other models, so therefore disembarking models must always be placed outside the vehicle model (and not on top of it).


I really don't understand how the issue can be truly argued another way without the game essentially completely breaking down.

"If passengers are indeed disembarking from a vehicle model (which you must accept otherwise there are no Access Points on a wreck for them to disembark from), then they cannot per the rules be placed on top of the vehicle model.



*Models cannot be placed on top of other models, so therefore disembarking models must always be placed outside the vehicle model (and not on top of it)."

exactly!

i agree with yaks first point but not his second.

Keep up this sillyness and you'll be on your way to earning another reputation besides being illiterate.

why single me out?? is it my cool user name or my cool avater pic that has people hating?? ok i am acrap at gaming and should not come on the rules sections as i dont read cos i am illeterate, maybe i should just post pics of my conversions and painted mini's? then we will see who the daddy is.

why single me out?? is it my cool user name or my cool avater pic that has people hating??

Uh, no... Posting 'I disagree' without saying why you disagree, is what will 'single you out'

It's fine to disagree, but if you're not going to back it up with a valid argument, you're not contributing anything to the thread.

That's OK Beef. You get on board. I'll drive!

I agree with yakface about the double hit from explosion issue being askew of the actual point so I will try not to mention it any further. The thing I do disagree with though is the fact that vehicle wrecks do not have access points. Here's my case:

One of the reasons for passengers to make an emergency disembark move is because their vehicle is destroyed. They will not make this move unless that qualifier is true. So, if the rules tell us that passengers must disembark fom a destroyed vehicle then they have to get out of somewhere. I'm even willing to say that the picture of the half-circles is the only valid disembarkation area (even from a wreck). But, either way, they're still getting out of a wreck. It's either that or we say that the rulebook wasted a whole lot of text to just say that passengers are always killed when their vehicle gets destroyed since their are no access points on a wreck and they can't get out. I suppose they might not be destroyed since they are still on-table. So they can just sit their in their steel box with nothing to do but fire indirect fire weapons and such.

The only argument to be made against this is that all of the events happen simultaneously. That simply cannot be true since simultaneous things cannot cause each other to happen.

I am agreeing with Glaive Co. Like he said he is driving and i am just here for the ride. When i disagree its no point me re-writing what he has already stated. my fingure will get artheritus like that.

The only argument to be made against this is that all of the events happen simultaneously. That simply cannot be true since simultaneous things cannot cause each other to happen.

Just because you can't grasp how all damage effects can be simultaneously resolved doesn't mean it can't happen. When a vehicle suffers a destroyed result all the damage effects are triggered, none of them before the other. So the vehicle explodes while the passengers disembark while the vehicle becomes a wreck.

When all is said and done the passengers have disembarked and the vehicle is a wreck.

I agree with yakface about the double hit from explosion issue being askew of the actual point so I will try not to mention it any further. The thing I do disagree with though is the fact that vehicle wrecks do not have access points.

So, why exactly does a wreck have access points? Because it has to? Does that mean the passengers can get back inside the wreck? The wreck can move away and keep shooting with it's weapons?

Seriously, you can't have it both ways.

No comment as when yakface gets going the reading gets to long for me lol

No comment as when yakface gets going the reading gets to long for me lol

Then why post?


Anyway, a valid point has been made by Yakface that has yet to be disproven.

P1-The disembarking models must disembark from within 2" of the vehicle's access points.

P2-The 'wreck' does not have "access" points.

P3-A vehicle has access points.

C1-regardless of damage being taken the unit disembarks from a 'vehicle' and not a 'wreck' therefore the unit cannot disembark into the same 'vehicle' they are disembarking from.

yakface: "Seriously, you can't have it both ways."

That's funny. I was going to say that to you with the whole explosion affecting the passengers thing. We won't go into it again though. I'm willing to admit that I can't grasp how simultaneous things can cause each other to happen. The main problem with the whole "simultaneous" argument is that the rules don't say anything like that. They say to disembark the passengers if the vehicle is destroyed. It doesn't tell us to consider this as happening simultaneously. It doesn't tell us that while the vehicle is exploding the passengers are disembarking. It doesn't tell us that the vehicle stays in a state of limbo between wrecked and intact until the passengers have disembarked. If you're placing models on the table in an emergency disembark scenario and someone asks you why you're models are being placed what will you tell them? The answer won't be "the vehicle is becomming a wreck." The answer will be "their vehicle got destroyed."

Maybe you mean that even though the steps must occur in sequence the end result is to consider the entire thing simultaneous. I suppose that's possible, but that would be an assumption of the intent since that is never stated anywhere.

yakface: "So, why exactly does a wreck have access points? Because it has to? Does that mean the passengers can get back inside the wreck? The wreck can move away and keep shooting with it's weapons?"

The answer to the first question is obvious, but only because I believe there is a step process. If you believe that all of the steps happen simultaneously the passengers are disembarking/embarked from/inside both a wreck and an intact vehicle and it becommes pointless to even say that a wreck has access points.

The second question has been answered.

The third question is answered by the fact that the rulebook doesn't give us a way to embark troops into a wreck. It lists what must be done in an emergency disembark scenario from a wreck, but not an embarkation into a wreck.

The fourth question is a little strange because the existence of access points really shouldn't effect the vehicle's ability to move and shoot. So, we must be talking about the differences between a vehicle and a wreck. Aside from the stated rules (blocking LOS, cover save, etc) the book really doesn't list the differences. They probably feel that it is understood without saying that wrecks probably lose the ability to move and fire. Really though, this has no bearing on this discussion at all.

The fourth question is a little strange because the existence of access points really shouldn't effect the vehicle's ability to move and shoot. So, we must be talking about the differences between a vehicle and a wreck. Aside from the stated rules (blocking LOS, cover save, etc) the book really doesn't list the differences. They probably feel that it is understood without saying that wrecks probably lose the ability to move and fire. Really though, this has no bearing on this discussion at all.

The difference is being brought up because the vehicle has access points while a wreck does not. The wreck can be moved onto as if it were 'difficult terrain'.

Therefore since disembarking rules state that disembarking is done from 'access' points the models aren't disembarking from a wreck since they do not have any, they are disembarking from a vehicle. As such they cannot stack on the vehicle model, therefore they cannot disembark back onto the same vehicle they are disembarking from, regardless of why the models are disembarking. This is supported by the RaW as Yakface and I have shown. You have yet to disprove this.

Glaive Co wrote:

That's funny. I was going to say that to you with the whole explosion affecting the passengers thing. We won't go into it again though. I'm willing to admit that I can't grasp how simultaneous things can cause each other to happen. The main problem with the whole "simultaneous" argument is that the rules don't say anything like that. They say to disembark the passengers if the vehicle is destroyed. It doesn't tell us to consider this as happening simultaneously. It doesn't tell us that while the vehicle is exploding the passengers are disembarking. It doesn't tell us that the vehicle stays in a state of limbo between wrecked and intact until the passengers have disembarked. If you're placing models on the table in an emergency disembark scenario and someone asks you why you're models are being placed what will you tell them? The answer won't be "the vehicle is becomming a wreck." The answer will be "their vehicle got destroyed."

Maybe you mean that even though the steps must occur in sequence the end result is to consider the entire thing simultaneous. I suppose that's possible, but that would be an assumption of the intent since that is never stated anywhere.

To be fair, I fully understand how a reasonable person could indeed come to the conclusion that disembarking passengers get hit by the exploding vehicle. But honestly (as I've said in previous posts), that particular aspect of the argument really has no bearing on wrecks having Access Points and passengers disembarking into that wreck.

No matter how you want to slice it there is simply no evidence to support that wrecks have Access Points.



But going back to the whole concept of simultaneous play: The rules don't ever need to say things are necessarily simultaneous. If the rules don't list a particular sequence of effects then the only logical method to play by is a simultaneous approach.

For example, the "start of the turn". In the rules, a whole bunch of things happen at the "start of the turn". If you start treating these events sequentially as soon as you perform the first one, technically we are no longer at the "start of the turn".

So even though the rules don't specify as such, all events that occur at the "start of the turn" must occur simultaneously. All IB tests, All reserve rolls, All Deep Striking, etc.

In reality, we obviously cannot physically perform all these actions simulatenously, but in the realm of the game we must treat these events as if they have occured as such. Playing otherwise would be making an assumption not supported by the rules.


So as an example, say at the "start of the turn" there is some sort of Orbital Barrage and Deep Strikers both hitting/landing at the exact same spot. Does the Orbital barrage hit the Deep Strikers? The answer is clearly no, because if we played it that way then we would have actually been playing that the Deep Strike occured before the Orbital Strike; something we know to be incorrect.

The events occur simulatneously, and when they are finished being resolved the strike has hit models previously on the board at that spot, and the deep strikers have been placed on the board.

The same concept applies to vehicle damage because the rules do not specify that the different aspects of the damage are worked out in some sort of sequential order. Therefore we must assume that they all occur simultaneously.

Well, I've said it before an I'll say it again; Maybe I'm trying to insert too much logic into my reading of the rules. It must be a hazard of my profession, because I simply can't wrap my head around this simultaneous issue.

To use your example of the deep strikers being hit by an orbital bombardment: I would rule that they are hit. If we are saying that deep strikers arrive simultaneously with orbital bombardment then they are on the table when the bombardment is happening. This doesn't sound right from a fluff perspective, but simultaneous means there is no time gap in between the events. A unit that deploys normally will also be on the board simultaneously with the arrival of the bombardment. The only difference between the unit that deploys normally and the unit that deep strikes is that one was there before the bombardment. Both are there during the bombardment though if the events happen simultaneously. The only way the deep strikers would be safe would be if they arrived after the bombardment.

yakface: "If the rules don't list a particular sequence of effects then the only logical method to play by is a simultaneous approach."
This may be the problem right here. I believe that the rules do give us a partiular sequence of events. I can't see how the vehicle getting destroyed doesn't cause the passengers to disembark. It seems that you can't see how these events can't be simultaneous. I don't know if it's possible for one of us to convince the other here, so I don't know where to go. I can't think of any more evidence that we haven't already used.

It will be impossible to move forward until we have resolved this issue though. The larger issue (can passengers emergency disembark onto their own vehicle?) hinges completely on the belief of the smaller issue (do the damage results happen simultaneously to the disembarkation?).

To summarize the two sides: If you believe that the events happen in a sequence of steps then the passengers are disembarking from a wreck because the vehicle is destroyed before they get out. So, the next question to ask is do wrecks have access points. If you believe they do, then the passengers will complete their emergency disembark move. If you believe they do not the passengers will be either trapped on board or destroyed. If the passengers can disembark then they can be placed on top of the wreck since models can stack on top of wrecks.

If you believe the events happen simultaneously the passengers will be able to disembark for the fact that the vehicle will be a vehicle and a wreck simultaneously as well as the fact that the passengers will be embarked and disembarked simultaneously.

I can't see how the vehicle getting destroyed doesn't cause the passengers to disembark.

Hey Glaive,
look at it like this, the reasoning behind the disembarking is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you disembark because you wanted to, because the vehicle took a pen hit, the vehicle was destroyed or your momma told you (heh) the fact remains that in order to disembark you must do so from access points. Since vehicle are the only models that have access point then you are, by the RaW, disembarking from a vehicle. The vehicle does in fact turn into a wreck but it would then be AFTER your models disembarked that this happens.

If you are saying that the vehicle becomes a wreck THEN the models disembark then you would be breaking the RaW as there are no 'access' points on a wreck.

Sure. Sounds good to me. Does it really matter anyways? It appears that only 4 of us even care about this enough to keep it going and 3 of us will probably never disembark models onto their own wreck anyways (for RAW or sports reasons). I'm not sure how Beef intends on playing it so I will not speak for him.

So, the effects of the wreck all happen simultaneously, including the disembarkation of passengers (but excluding any explosion effects which happen beforehand). With this understanding of the RAW models may never make an emergency disembark onto their own wreck because models can't stack. I'm fine with letting it rest there so that we can concentrate on more important things like using tank skimmers to tank shock into CC or something. Let's consider this the end of it. I suggest this thread be locked because if anyone else posts here I will be forced to destroy this thread with my anger (ala Master Shake). Anyways, there's 5 stars next to the thread and I think that means we have to go report to the death chamber before a sandman is dispathced to dfind us.

i will disembark onto my wreck as we usually just put a crater down instead of the vehickle so my marines will be in the middle of a crater. on minute they are sitting in the Rhino trudging along, ZZapp and a lascannon destroys that and then my marines are sitting in a crator. SIMPLE,

and crators block line of sight and they are area terrain. Pls dont correct me if i am wrong. i dont care.

will disembark onto my wreck as we usually just put a crater down instead of the vehickle so my marines will be in the middle of a crater. on minute they are sitting in the Rhino trudging along, ZZapp and a lascannon destroys that and then my marines are sitting in a crator. SIMPLE,

Great house rule....

and crators block line of sight and they are area terrain. Pls dont correct me if i am wrong. i dont care.

So does that make you better than the rest of us who are discussing actual rules and not your made up ones? ;-)

ok ok, you are not wrong, now are you going to add to the discussion? ;-)

 

EDIT: Added smilies..

there is unfortunatly no such thing as actual rules. They vary from store to store and unfortunatly from tournament to tournament. I have been to tournies where the judges verdict is final and no matter of protesting changes that. I have seen people who were right have to shut up as the majority think they were wrong including the judges. Therefore i place no faith in ACTUAL rules. If you are right and go to a tournie, if everybody there says you are wrong, what are you going to do??
NOTHING thats what. This explains my carefree attitude to rules. Its not a reflection of my intellect.

I warned you guys!

The only way that a model can actually disembark onto their own wreck is by using a process that yakface and I have dubbed "The Disembarkinator." We have spent countless hours devising this process and are finally at a point where we can unveil it to the public. Before I explain it fully you all must acknowledge the intense work we had to go through to bring this magic to life. A team of swedish scientists have been toiling away carefully collecting samples of goo from the floor of the amazon rain forest for years now. After billions of dollars worth of research the goo was finally analyzed and discovered to be an elixir of untold power beyond the hopes of anyone on the team incuding yakface and myself. Cargo ships and planes were immediately dispatched to harvest the magic substance, but unfortunately the site where the magic sauce was discovered had become a Wal-Mart.

Undaunted, the team set out to re-create the substance (only after pausing to get a delicious fruit smoothie from the dairy isle). Only by a horrible lab accident was the substance actually able to be recreated in a synthetic form. Unfortunately, the accident left beef paralyzed from the neck up and caused D.I.G. to grow an extra appendage of un-specified type. Fortunately, I emerged un-scathed, but yakface ,forever scarred, still haunts the lab to this day. If one listens closely, one can hear him playing his Casio 1500 using the "Jazz Organ" setting somewhere deep in the bowels of the lab. Of course he has been dubbed "the Phantom of the Emergency Disembarkation Lab." Sometimes Wynton Marsalis stops by and they jam and if you're ever in the Hollywood area you can check out their show around 10 at the Blue Note.

...wait...That's not the story of how we solved the emergency disembark problem. That's the story of how we started Jazztone records (a subsidiary of Games Workshop R). Yeah, emergency disembark onto your own wreck? You can't do that.

Yawn. . . Stretch. . . My what a nice nap, what did I miss. . . . Nothing! OMG you guys are on the same crappy as topics you were on before! I totally solved this equation months ago. You can target two different units as long as the first unit is not in LOS. LOS cannot be drawn through the legs of another model, unless that model is over 5.2 feet tall, and has no loin cloth. This rule does not pertain to space marines unless it will win them the game. If unsure, let the space marine player decide. You can disembark unto a reck because a reck is not a vehcile, it is terrain, terrain has no "exit points" so the troops are trapped inside forever, but since this all happens in the past, we can safely assume that they starved to death and as such no units will embark on transports for fear of the small cramped spaces and total darkness.

Yawn. . . Stretch. . . My what a nice nap, what did I miss. . . . Nothing! OMG you guys are on the same crappy as topics you were on before! I totally solved this equation months ago. You can target two different units as long as the first unit is not in LOS. LOS cannot be drawn through the legs of another model, unless that model is over 5.2 feet tall, and has no loin cloth. This rule does not pertain to space marines unless it will win them the game. If unsure, let the space marine player decide. You can disembark unto a reck because a reck is not a vehcile, it is terrain, terrain has no "exit points" so the troops are trapped inside forever, but since this all happens in the past, we can safely assume that they starved to death and as such no units will embark on transports for fear of the small cramped spaces and total darkness.

What Honkey Bro was "trying" to say is look at page 21 paragraph 3 and you will find the sentence that answers all these questions.

Fine, enough with this thread. I think all the salient points have been covered. Until it we discuss it again in 3 weeks. . .