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.

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.