Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the new faq rules out...if a storm raven moves flat out will the units inside + the dreadnought be destroyed on a roll of 5 or 6 on the vehicle damage chart?

Only if it gets wrecked or explodes during your own turn.

This is nothing to do with the new FAQ, specifically. It's just clarifying a rule that's always been there.

The issue that people are having with this is with the definition of a 'turn'

Where the rules refer to 'turns' they mean 'player turn' unless it specifically says 'game turn'... (page 9, Game Turns and Player Turns)

So the rule that prohibits the passengers from disembarking (which, as the FAQ clarifies, means they are killed along with the vehicle) only takes effect if the vehicle is destroyed in the same player turn as it moves flat out. If you move flat out, and then your opponent subsequently destroys the vehicle in his next turn, the passengers are free to disembark as normal.

I also got to hear someone whining about this "change" this weekend.

It is funny how much common sense offends people when they disagree with it.

the only 'change' is that it now effects 'explodes' as well as 'wrecked'.

coredump wrote:the only 'change' is that it now effects 'explodes' as well as 'wrecked'.

That has caused whining though, mostly from the folks who never thought it would apply to them,for people who are unfamiliar with the rules.

coredump wrote:the only 'change' is that it now effects 'explodes' as well as 'wrecked'.

That's not really a 'change' unless you were previously interpreting the 'Explodes' result to mean that the troops that were suddenly disembarked from the vehicle managed to do so without disembarking...

Mainly because they followed not one single rule for Disembarking as given in the rulebook, you mean?

It was a perfectly valid interpretation.

Common sense = win.
If you argee with the common sense.
Which oddly is common only when folks agree with it.

insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:the only 'change' is that it now effects 'explodes' as well as 'wrecked'.

That's not really a 'change' unless you were previously interpreting the 'Explodes' result to mean that the troops that were suddenly disembarked from the vehicle managed to do so without disembarking...

+1

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mainly because they followed not one single rule for Disembarking as given in the rulebook, you mean?

It was a perfectly valid interpretation.

[good natured ribbing]
So what, Disembarked does not = Disembarked.....???

Is that like the models don't have to be fully on the table when arriving from reserve? (which the faq now clearly states that they do)
[/good natured ribbing]
back on topic, Yes OP the units inside + the dreadnought be destroyed on a roll of 5 or 6 on the vehicle damage chart if it gets destroyed during your turn somehow.

kirsanth wrote:I also got to hear someone whining about this "change" this weekend.

It is funny how much common sense offends people when they disagree with it.

QFT (Quoted for truth, not that other QFT I am used to QFT meaning)

Well I want to know whose common sense is the best and most right. Consensus on the interwebs can be fickle at times.

insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:the only 'change' is that it now effects 'explodes' as well as 'wrecked'.

That's not really a 'change' unless you were previously interpreting the 'Explodes' result to mean that the troops that were suddenly disembarked from the vehicle managed to do so without disembarking...

Well... Since the Wrecked result said they had to "disembark", and the Explode result only said they were "Placed"; many folks interpreted that to be different than disembarking. I don't use transports, so I didn't really care.

coredump wrote:

insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:the only 'change' is that it now effects 'explodes' as well as 'wrecked'.

That's not really a 'change' unless you were previously interpreting the 'Explodes' result to mean that the troops that were suddenly disembarked from the vehicle managed to do so without disembarking...

Well... Since the Wrecked result said they had to "disembark", and the Explode result only said they were "Placed"; many folks interpreted that to be different than disembarking. I don't use transports, so I didn't really care.

For awhile I thought that on a wreaked result troops climbed out of the twisted smoking wreckage of their transport, while on an explodes result they were forcibly ejected via the explosion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mainly because they followed not one single rule for Disembarking as given in the rulebook, you mean?

It was a perfectly valid interpretation.

I never said that it wasn't a valid interpretation. I'm just not at all surprised that it's not the interpretation that GW chose to go with.

DR -the point was they never disembarked. They never followed one single rule in disembarking. Not one.

Everywhere else NOT following the rules for X would normally imply you werent doing X....

They went for this interpretation to disallow the suicide ram, imho. Nothing to do with "its disembarking!!!" because it isnt, but because they didnt like orks being able to assault if their vehicle spectacularly explodes but not if the vehicle merely crashes to a halt.....

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR -the point was they never disembarked. They never followed one single rule in disembarking. Not one.

Which would be fine, if GW actually followed a rigid keyword structure, like MTG or Star Wars Miniatures.

It doesn't. In GW-land, if you were embarked in a vehicle, and you exited the vehicle, you disembarked. Whether or not you followed the normal rules process of disembarking is irrelevant. As backed up by the paragraph immediately after the 'Explodes' text on page 67.

"now disembarked" is not the same as "used the disembark rules"

They have mde them equivalent through the FAQ

Does this finally end the going from embarked to disembarked =/= Disembarking arguments so frequently brought up here?

Does this mean people accept you have to remain 1" away from your opponents models when disembarked into the footprint of a vehicle on the explodes result?

Glad GW once again allowed common sense to rule (not that they always do).

No, because you are not following ANY OF THE RULES for disembarking.

You are "PLACED", not "moved", so why do you have to follow rules for movement? I assume when you place deepstriking markers you follow the rules for movement? Otherwise you are being inconsistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To posit a question: what makes more sense?

1) You are not disembarking becauase you follow not one single rule for disembarking
2) you are disembarking because....?

1) You are not disembarking becauase you follow not one single rule for disembarking
2) you are disembarking because....?

Your first point is incorrect as you do follow rules for disembarking. You count as moving can't be placed within 1" of an enemy model and are destroyed if you can't legally disembark. So that first point should read:

1) You are not disembarking because Nos said so.

or

2) You are disembarking because:

a) You are going from embarked to disembarked
b) You fololw the rules for disembarking
c) You aren't allowed to do it if you aren't allowed to disembark.

This really is a tough call which makes more sense...

No, it states you are PLACED.

Show me the rule, in explodes, which states they disembark.

Not that they are disembarked, but they are disembarkING

You think it makes sense to follow the rules for getting out of a vehicle through the exit hatches when the vehicle has , instead, exploded around you and is now nothing more than a crater, leaving you dumped on the ground?

Really? THAT is your "sense"?

No, it states you are PLACED.

Show me the rule, in explodes, which states they disembark.

Not that they are disembarked, but they are disembarkING

You think it makes sense to follow the rules for getting out of a vehicle through the exit hatches when the vehicle has , instead, exploded around you and is now nothing more than a crater, leaving you dumped on the ground?

What is the name of the process where one goes from embarked to disembarked?

Why else would you be destroyed in the example covered in the FAQ?

Yes is states placed but it also states you are going from embarked to disembarked. Now granted some people struggle with the basic English comprehension required to work out that is disembarking but thankfully the latest FAQ has cleared that up even for those people.

FlingitNow wrote:What is the name of the process where one goes from embarked to disembarked?

Thrown overboard?

Sorry, I had to. Disembarking is the civilized manner of leaving a ship. There are other ways which aren't at all referred to disembarking.

Gwar!'s interpretation of the rules for vehicle destroyed - explodes makes linguistic sense, the only problem is that GW sometimes forget that people are going to read it and read it looking for an answer to questions. In a universe where you can air-drop a Land Raider without much in the way of deceleration devices, who are we to question common sense?

Yes is states placed but it also states you are going from embarked to disembarked

No, it really doesnt say anything of the sort. Dont make stuff up.

If your craft blows up around you, you really havent gone through disembarkation - in fact to say you have is nonsense. Your ship left YOU, YOU did not leave your ship.

The FAQ *dun dun dun* CHANGES the rules in its answer.

No bad thing, as it was always a rather crazy tactic, but it doesnt alter that following not one single rule for disembarking (please, find one rule it follows - from the steps outlined, not those you have made up) and, in fact, doing something entirely impossible to do when disembarking (placing yourself where the vehicle used to be is impossible in the disembarking rules) and doing so when there is no vehicle left to disembark from (please, measure 2" to the hull of the vehicle not there) should HOPEFULLY clue you into the fact that

It
Is
Not
Disembarking

Not in any kind of linguistically sensible, consistent approach. It is NOT common sense to say that performing a passive action (sitting there while your vehicle explodes) is equivalent to an active action (you know, getting out of the burning vehicle) - well, not "common" sense. Fling sense, maybe.

Hence the FAQ changes the rules.

Hence the FAQ changes the rules.

Which by definition it can't do...

I've illustrated all the rules for disembarking it follows. It doesn't follow the rules for placement from a hull or exit point becuase those no loonger exist on the table hence it tells you waht to do instead of the impossible. I really don't see how this is causing you such trouble.

Yet it does do so. Meaning your definition is incorrect.

OR that GW, known for incredible inability to hire technical writers, doesnt understand the difference between "FAQ" and "errata", or even when they just dont understand what the rules
are currently.

I really dont understand the problems you are having showing me an actual rule from the section in disembarking that an explodes! result follow.

Yet it does do so. Meaning your definition is incorrect.

OR that GW, known for incredible inability to hire technical writers, doesnt understand the difference between "FAQ" and "errata", or even when they just dont understand what the rules
are currently.

I really dont understand the problems you are having showing me an actual rule from the section in disembarking that an explodes! result follow.

Either that or your stance of the rules is not consistent with the rules writers... So whose stance has more weight? GWs or yours?

I don't have a problem with showing what disembarking ruyles it follows it follows all of them except where it gives an exception. Just like JP infnatry move 12" but otherwise have all the normal moving restriction except where they have a specific excemption. Yet the entire movement phase rules aren't listed under the JP Infantry type, like you seem to require to have under the dDestroyed-explodes result for disembarking. Show me where it says it doesn't follow all the normal rules for disembarking and that this form of disembarkation is differnt?

Except it, nowhere, says you disembark. So why are you following rules you dont have permisison to follow?

Especially when you follow not one single disembark rule in doing so. For example you can be PLACED within 1" of an enemy model as at no point are you moving....the vehiocle has (re)moved itself from around you.

Or GW have no idea what they write sometimes and seemingly make things up as they go along. If you really plan to state otherwise, well, good luck...

Except it, nowhere, says you disembark. So why are you following rules you dont have permisison to follow?

It states you are embarked before hand and disembarked afterwards. So again I iterate where are you getting permission to not follow the disembarking rules?

"it" being the Explodes! result? "It" really does not state that.

In correct English you can fulfill the condition for being "disembarked" without having actually performed the ACTION of disembarking. Especially when the action of disembarking is defined in rules elsewhere and you are told to do things which are not anywhere to be found in the rules for disembarking.

So where are you getting permission to use rules not referenced or alluded to in the Explodes! instructions? The explodes! instructions are entirely self contained, given you can perform them with no reference to any other rules at all....

You need to find permission to use the Disembark rules despite Explodes having an entirely self contained set of rules.