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.

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)?

No. The disembarking zone is defined on page 62 of the rulebook.

I agree that the area is defined on P62, in the text as 2 inches from a door, but I disagree that they can not be placed in the wreck.

Clearly, in the area terrain of the wreck is within 2 inches of the door, if the circles in the diagram were completely shown, they would cover the rhino, but the rhino is displayed on top of them.  By the letter of the section, deploying in the wreck is legal, as it is within 2 inches of the door.  The picture is inconclusive.

Clearly, in the area terrain of the wreck is within 2 inches of the door, if the circles in the diagram were completely shown, they would cover the rhino,

If the circles were shown on the other side of the battlefield, you could deploy there too.

They're not.

The rules and the diagram clearly define the disembarking area. Your models can deploy within 2" of a door, outside the vehicle.

Nothing else is allowed by the rules.


On a different tack, as Yakface pointed out in the other thread on this, wrecks don't have access points. So if its a wreck as they are disembarking, they can't get out in the first place. The vehicle therefore only becomes a wreck after the models have disembarked. At the moment they are disembarking, it is still a vehicle, and therefore not Area Terrain.

Wrecks not having access points is conjecture, it's a fabricated argument. 

It still stands that inside the wreck is within 2 inches of the door as defined by RAW.  Dance around it all you want.

Furthermore that diagram is for regular disembarking, not for emergency disembarkation, that section doesn't have any diagrams at all. Therefore it doesn't really have any relevance at all, and it's inclusion is based only on a point of view, and an ambiguous interpretation.

Furthermore that diagram is for regular disembarking, not for emergency disembarkation, that section doesn't have any diagrams at all. Therefore it doesn't really have any relevance at all, and it's inclusion is based only on a point of view, and an ambiguous interpretation.

That is conjecture. The diagram is for all disembarking. Emergency disembarking follows all the normal rules for regular disembarking (along with a few additional ones). You cannot simply ignore the diagram because it doesn't suit your opinion.

Wrecks not having access points is conjecture, it's a fabricated argument.

How is that a fabricated argument? Are you going to try to argue that a wreck is also a vehicle? Because only vehicles have Access points.

As I pointed out in the other thread the vehicle is a wreck before the passengers disembark. This is assuming that the table (not the text) takes precedence. To break it down:

The table tells us in what condition passengers disembarking from a vehicle that either suffers a penetrating hit but is not wrecked (paraphrased) or is wrecked (paraphrased) There is no way to get to that condition without first working through the entire process of actually wrecking the vehicle. So, the vehicle is wrecked THEN the passengers disembark. Of course, if we ignore the table for a moment the text may actually leave a bit of ambiguity as to wether or not the passengers have to disembark immediately after the vehicle suffers a penetrating hit, but before the actual damage is worked out. Either way, glancing destroyed vehicles still leave the problem wide open.

Now, having said that there are other problems. Mainly, there are no rules about models disembarking from terrain. I am actually starting to think that wrecks are terrain, but are actually their own class of terrain that allow models to disembark from them in emergency situations. This will require more research of course.

The end result is that there are two possible answers here:

1. There is an unwritten intent that a vehicle wreck actually has a time when it is in limbo between a vehicle and an actual wreck. The only thing keeping the vehicle from actually becoming a wreck is the fact that passengers have not disembarked yet.

2. Per the RAW passengers can actually disembark from the wreck although it is left up in the air exactly how they can (access points, outside of wreck or within, etc.).

For sportsmanship and intent I believe passengers should disembark outside of the wreck and within 2" of the access points.

I'll just have to disagree. I don't read anything in the rules precluding the possiblity that all the effects of damage are worked out simultaneously. So, when you roll on the damage table and get your result, all aspects of that result happen essentially at the same time.

So the explosion effect (if any), the placement of disembarking passengers, and the conversion of the vehicle model to a wreck all happen at the same time.

And maybe I'm just being too analytical in my reading. Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that passengers will not make an emergency disembark move unless their vehicle is wrecked. We won't know if the vehicle is wrecked until it is actually wrecked. So, once the "wrecked" is in the past tense we can move on to disembarking the passengers. I think it's just another one of those things that didn't get thought out so well. Again, I think the writers are just assuming that we will all play it as the vehicle is somehow held intact until the passengers disembark since that seems to be the way that breaks the least rules.

Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that passengers will not make an emergency disembark move unless their vehicle is wrecked.

Passengers make an emergency disembark every time the vehicle is penetrated. It doesn't have to be wrecked.

I know dude. My post before the last explains the entire situation in great detail as does the post on that other thread about pretty much the same thing. I'm just getting really tired of typing it.

I hoped that we could all just assume we meant the pure vehicle wreck. In other words, the glance destroyed. Adding the pen muddies the waters only because the text actually says something like suffers a pen hit or is wrecked. The table actually forces the damage to be worked out though since it says something like "suffers penetrating hit but isn't wrecked." So, if we disregard the table then the passengers must first disembark upon pen hit, then the vehicle damage is worked out. If we go off of the table we are back where we started. The point of this entire thread is what the passengers do when the vehicle is wrecked so my posts are assuming that the vehicle damage is "wrecked."

I think you're just needlessly complicating the issue.

There is no need to seperate Pens from Glance: destroyed results, since they both have the same effect: The passengers disembark.

As Yakface pointed out, it all happens at the same time. The passengers disembark, and the vehicle becomes damaged.

Oh, I'm sure I'm needlessly complicating the issue! As I've said before, I truly believe the intent is that passengers disembark, then the vehicle is wrecked. I suppose we can also assume that the passengers disembark at the same time as the vehicle is in the process of being wrecked too. Maybe it's because I deal with code all day but the reason for disembarkation must be satisfied in order for the action of disembarkation to be true. In other words, there is a question:

Is the vehicle wrecked?

If the answer is yes then the passengers disembark. If the answer is no then there is another question:

Is the vehicle penetrated? (hehe)

If the answer is yes then the passengers disembark. If the answer is no then they sit there.

The reason for the order is because in order for the passengers to disembark from a pen alone the qualifier is that the vehicle suffers a penetrating hit but is not wrecked. If we know it isn't wrecked then we've already worked out damage. And if that is true then it is already in the past tense before we put our passengers on the table.

So, to sum up:

For the passengers to disembark the vehicle must be wrecked or penetrated but not wrecked. We must know if the vehicle is wrecked or not to know if it causes them to disembark. They will not disembark if the vehicle might be wrecked, or probably won't be wrecked, or while it's wrecked. They will disembark if the vehicle is wrecked or penetrated but not wrecked.

I know appologize and bow out since this is a pointless debate anyways. The result will still be the same. I think everyone here knows what my stance is for actual game play. I just don't think the issue is as cut and dry as people think.

Let me ask this: If you shoot a vehicle and get 1 glance and 1 penetrating hit, do you immediately disembark the guys and have to take a pin check? Or do you check to see if the vehicle is destroyed and then they are automatically subject to getting killed prior to getting out AND are entrapped?

Timing matters. Because if the vehicle is now a wreck, does it count as a model you can't place your models on? The whole problem some people have with this that they have been trying to point out is that the timing of when things happen matters a lot more than GW would like to think. You get weird situations if you go by strict RAW, as a HUGE number of issues have shown already. If it is a wreck, it has no access poinst so no one should get out. But they don't need to get out until it is a wreck if it was just a glance. So are all transport skimmers death traps that will not allow you to deploy if they get killed? Seems silly, so if they are a wreck, and the rules say you get out of an access point (which wrecks apparently don't have since only vehicles do), if you apply logic and say you use the vehicle's original access points, why are you only applying it half way. The vehicle is no longer a vehicle, so it doesn't stop models from moving into the spot. You can deploy within 2" of an access point without a difficult terrain roll. The wreck is not a model so you should be able to deploy there.

Personally I wouldn't mind it having to be outside the wreck. It makes sense both ways but seems more tidy being outside it.
At the same time, I see the issue and understand that it is a valid point.

This should get cleared up in the general FAQ that will be released any day now...

Don't tell me that last line didn't get a chuckle

There is a third option, and one that I mentioned already, and one that breaks NO rules (and should therefore be used):


All damage results happen simultaneously. Vehicles explode, passengers disembark and vehicles becomes wrecks all at the same time.

Your 3rd option doesn't break any rules. but it also doesn't answer the initial question either

Embarked models must disembark from a vehicle. There are No rules for Disembarking from area terrain. When they disembark they have to disembark from a vehicle... Periond. They can't "Disembark" from area terrain. No such rule exists. If it does, point it out and i'll stand corrected.

Now if they have to disembark from a Vehicle it means they can't be placed on top of it (no stacking models!) But if  all happen at the same time. Then I should be free to move into the wreckage as it is area terrain. (Since it all happens at the same time) Otherwise the status of the vehicle becoming a wreck happens AFTER they disembark.

So i'd say that the simultaneous argument lends creedence to the argument that you CAN place the models on the vehicle wreckage.

Strangely enough My group plays that it all happens at the same time like you suggest but because of your argment we allow them deploy into the wreckage. Because the Rules make no statement of ORDER on the classification changes we play they all happen at the same time.

Oh. And since transport vehicles are essentially nerfed being entangled in the vehicle and getting a cover save is a small victory for the once mighty Rhino Rush Armies... That i hate

Now if they have to disembark from a Vehicle it means they can't be placed on top of it (no stacking models!) But if all happen at the same time. Then I should be free to move into the wreckage as it is area terrain. (Since it all happens at the same time) Otherwise the status of the vehicle becoming a wreck happens AFTER they disembark.

That simply isn't true. A vehicle is a vehicle until it it becomes/is replaced by a wreck. If troops have to disembark from a vehicle at the same time it becomes a wreck, they are still disembarking from a vehicle. It is one of the many effects of a vehicle being destroyed that all happen at the same time.

More importantly (as I've pointed out numerous times) the diagram in the rulebook shows the allowable disembarking area, and it doesn't include disembarking on top of the vehicle model.

The only way to play this situation without breaking a rule (or without having passengers get hit by their exploding vehicle) is to resolve all damage effects at the same time.

Posted By Augustus 07/31/2006 11:33 PM
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)?

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

Very true.

Just because a vehicle has a "size category" doesn't mean that a wreck does. We've already established that a wreck is not a vehicle. Also, there is nothing in the BGB that indicates that a wreck should be considered as area terrain.

Sal

Everything has a "size category". A marine is size 2. Does that mean he's size 2 area terrain?

There are size categories for area terrain and size categories of models. How some people then make the leap that this means models are area terrain, or that all terrain is area terrain I'll never know.

 

Posted By mauleed 08/04/2006 12:45 PM

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

Because the wreck is terrain, has some of the properties of area terrain such as providing cover, "blocks LOS" as the vehicle did before it was a wreck, and has some other rules. It isn't real amazing that this could be confusing to people.

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.

This is actually a great segway into my theory of wrecked vehicles being a sub-category of terrain. I think we've all (once again) taken something for granted that actually doesn't exist in the RAW. I can't find a passage anywhere in the BGB that defines wrecks as terrain.

So, a wreck is not a piece of terrain. It is a wrecked vehicle with access points. It blocks LOS up to it's height characteristic before it was a wreck for the purposes of area terrain, and it blocks LOS in the shape of it's sillhoutte for all other shooting.

If anyone can find a section that describes wrecks as terrain please post it, but until then the new working theory should be that wrecks are NOT terrain. They possess many of the features that terrain do, but are not the same thing. This theory of course, makes it possible to disembark models onto the top of a wreck as well.

If anyone can find a section that describes wrecks as terrain please post it, but until then the new working theory should be that wrecks are NOT terrain. They possess many of the features that terrain do, but are not the same thing. This theory of course, makes it possible to disembark models onto the top of a wreck as well.

I can agree with part of your assesment. The rules don't clearly say that wrecks are terrain, but they certainly aren't still vehicles either. Remember, that to create a wreck a vehicle must be "destroyed". The vehicle is no longer there.

And you also are still ignoring the disembarking diagram in the rulebook. It does not allow models to deploy on top of the vehicle.

I have nothing to add other then Lord_Nerdhammer has the coolest avatar ever. Sorry, I'm just a stupid sucker for anything Clutch related.

Oh yeah and read my sig and keep it in mind whenever discussing anything with snoogums

yakface: "And you also are still ignoring the disembarking diagram in the rulebook. It does not allow models to deploy on top of 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.

Unless there is a section that specifically excludes wrecks from being targeted though, this may create more problems than it solves. If that is the case we should just consider wrecks something seperate from both vehicles and terrain. 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.

I see where the problem lies...

since I believe

Human belief only affects reality at a subatomic level, theoretically; above that, and your beliefs don't matter, in terms of facts.

I believe you are correct.  This section of the rules seems to leave too much ambiguity to reach a solid conclusion.  Once again the RAW fails us.

segue, not Segway.

Posted By yakface 08/04/2006 2:14 PM

I can agree with part of your assesment. The rules don't clearly say that wrecks are terrain, but they certainly aren't still vehicles either. Remember, that to create a wreck a vehicle must be "destroyed". The vehicle is no longer there.

So what is there? Not a vehicle, not "terrain", and not area terrain? I think we're overdefining this. It counts as terrain. Terrain does not have access points, therefore something that counts as it will not either. The other possibility is that it is now a "destroyed vehicle" which acts as a vehicle except without any movement, shooting, or value to the player. Careful though! We know that is not the case, because if it is a "destroyed vehicle", then you can't move onto it even in later turns. No-one at all plays that way...