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.

How would a model suffer damage and be forced to 'disembark'?

I think you've just proved me cast iron right even by RaW. So I thank you for that, the wording is clear you can be forced to disembark and take damage, hence the explosion result is a forced disembark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps Kirsanth you are a genius!

Oddly I am distinctly ambivalent about this 'rule' now.

I very much understand the point being made, but it seems to be too much an attempt around rules.

It may be doing this within the rules - as pointed out by others. But I think RAW leads in other directions, given context.

At this point I really am just being pedantic, as there is no other way to figure out the actual rules (and what they mean) that I can see.

So, it's obvious that a few of you believe that getting out of a vehicle in any way is disembarking. Does this then apply to teleporting out by using Gate of Infinity? Are you saying you could teleport out of a Land Raider and then assault? Now who's presenting ludicrous ideas?

Teleporting follows its own and (generally) the deeptrike rules -- which has its own restrictions.

kirsanth wrote:Teleporting follows its own and (generally) the deeptrike rules -- which has its own restrictions.

It fits into the general "leaving a vehicle is disembarking" shenanigan that people are coming up with, so if they are right, this is how the game would be played. It clearly shows that leaving a vehicle is not automatically disembarking. BTW explodes follows its own rules as well, with its own restrictions.

Leaving a vehicle is disembarking. Whether it follows the rules for Disembarking may be debatable -- but the parts I have quoted and asked about seem to very much lean that way.

kirsanth wrote:Leaving a vehicle is disembarking. Whether it follows the rules for Disembarking may be debatable -- but the parts I have quoted and asked about seem to very much lean that way.

You have just admitted that you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. I am seeing very few reasons to continue arguing with you.

I did no such thing.
I hope you can stop arguing with people, in general.
This is a great place for debate. Arguing, not so much.

thebetter1 wrote:

You have just admitted that you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. I am seeing very few reasons to continue arguing with you.

No, you can't, because GoI uses the Deep Strike movement rules, which specifically forbid assaulting. Your example is flawed, because in this case there is a specific prohibition, irregardless of whether such an action counts as "disembarking" or not.

You have just admitted that you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. I am seeing very few reasons to continue arguing with you.

Just admit you were very wrong. The rules are now clear, they are exactly what it was obvious to assume they were from reading the rules and Kirsanth has proven it. Your example of a LR is totally flawed the DS rules are also employed which strictly forbid assaulting. Just as allowing you to assault out of a LR doesn't mean you can still assault if out of assault range all normal restrictions remain in place...

FlingitNow wrote:

You have just admitted that you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. I am seeing very few reasons to continue arguing with you.

Just admit you were very wrong. The rules are now clear, they are exactly what it was obvious to assume they were from reading the rules and Kirsanth has proven it. Your example of a LR is totally flawed the DS rules are also employed which strictly forbid assaulting. Just as allowing you to assault out of a LR doesn't mean you can still assault if out of assault range all normal restrictions remain in place...

Actually, I'm right. The assault vehicle rules do not specify that the normal restrictions for assaulting are in place. A unit that is out of range CAN assault, but the assault will fail when range is measured. They aren't magically prevented from declaring an assault before you take out your tape measure.

The bottom line: you believe leaving a vehicle is disembarking, and teleporting out of a vehicle is therefore disembarking, showing the flaw in your argument. You cannot try to apply intermediary rules whenever a change of state occurs.

thebetter1 wrote:
The assault vehicle rules do not specify that the normal restrictions for assaulting are in place. A unit that is out of range CAN assault, but the assault will fail when range is measured. They aren't magically prevented from declaring an assault before you take out your tape measure.

The bottom line: you believe leaving a vehicle is disembarking, and teleporting out of a vehicle is therefore disembarking, showing the flaw in your argument. You cannot try to apply intermediary rules whenever a change of state occurs.

So what? I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you were to teleport out of a Land Raider, certainly it's disembarking. However, you are placed on the board using the Deep Strike rules, which forbid assaulting. Therefore, you cannot assault. You have not demonstrated any "flaw" in my argument. There might be one, but you haven't shown it yet.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
The assault vehicle rules do not specify that the normal restrictions for assaulting are in place. A unit that is out of range CAN assault, but the assault will fail when range is measured. They aren't magically prevented from declaring an assault before you take out your tape measure.

The bottom line: you believe leaving a vehicle is disembarking, and teleporting out of a vehicle is therefore disembarking, showing the flaw in your argument. You cannot try to apply intermediary rules whenever a change of state occurs.

So what? I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you were to teleport out of a Land Raider, certainly it's disembarking. However, you are placed on the board using the Deep Strike rules, which forbid assaulting. Therefore, you cannot assault. You have not demonstrated any "flaw" in my argument. There might be one, but you haven't shown it yet.

The assault vehicle rule does not say "the restriction on assaulting from a moving transport is removed." That is implied by the general statement allowing you to assault. What you are now saying is that assault vehicle does not let you assault out of a moving Land Raider because there is a specific rule to prevent it in the transports section.

I don't get why it's so hard for people to understand that going from state A to C does not mean that you performed action B.

Because reading the rest of the rules seems to indicate that B is performed?

thebetter1 wrote: What you are now saying is that assault vehicle does not let you assault out of a moving Land Raider because there is a specific rule to prevent it in the transports section.

I don't get why it's so hard for people to understand that going from state A to C does not mean that you performed action B.

Would you mind explaining your reasoning, clearly, for this statement? Because I don't think I ever said that.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Would you mind explaining your reasoning, clearly, for this statement? Because I don't think I ever said that.

You have clearly stated that teleporting out of a Land Raider is disembarking. The Land Raider rules make it very clear that you can assault after disembarking from it regardless of restrictions (if you believe restrictions are not overwritten, the rule does nothing). Put together, this means that you believe you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. To say otherwise without refuting my statements would make you a hypocrite.

kirsanth wrote:Because reading the rest of the rules seems to indicate that B is performed?

How about you stop making up rules? The rulebook has to clearly say that leaving an exploded vehicle is disembarking for it to be so. It does not. Therefore it is not. The fact that you cannot come up with anything concrete on this is further evidence.

thebetter1 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Would you mind explaining your reasoning, clearly, for this statement? Because I don't think I ever said that.

You have clearly stated that teleporting out of a Land Raider is disembarking. The Land Raider rules make it very clear that you can assault after disembarking from it regardless of restrictions (if you believe restrictions are not overwritten, the rule does nothing). Put together, this means that you believe you can assault after teleporting out of a Land Raider. To say otherwise without refuting my statements would make you a hypocrite.

As I don't have the SM codex, I can't comment on this rule. Can you quote it for me?

See page 5 of this thread.

I just went over it again. . . didn't see the text of the rule anywhere.

I was refering to my examples from the book -- not his. I was accused of making up rules.

kirsanth wrote:See page 5 of this thread.

Page 5 does not have any solid rules. We know that the models were in the vehicle and are not after it explodes. The rules refer to the passengers as being "disembarked," but this does not mean you get to throw in disembarkation rules in between even when the rulebook doesn't say to do so.


And no, I won't provide rules for people who do not have access to a rulebook. That wouldn't be very wise.

thebetter1 wrote:

And no, I won't provide rules for people who do not have access to a rulebook. That wouldn't be very wise.

Well, I don't feel the need to go spend 20 bucks for the sake of an Internet debate, and it's pointless to base an argument on data the other party has no access to. So I suppose at this point we simply agree to disagree.

Ok after reading this I have to ask. Since the rules state that if you kill a vehicle by shooting at it you may assault the disembarked passengers. Since some of you claim that you don't "disembark" from a vehicle that explodes does that mean you can't assault the guys that are now in the crater?

They either disembarked, making them subject to assault, or they didn't disembark meaning you can't assault them.

The troops are "disembarked." This did not mean that they disembark. Absolutely no one has come close to showing this.

Disembarked = not in a vehicle
Disembark = the action of leaving a vehicle by specific rules

This is supported further by the wording of "now disembarked" which shows that disembarked is a status rather than a past tense verb.

You can make it vague due to RAW (That's not terribly difficult to do) but it appears pretty clear RAI;

Pg. 66:
"However, they may embark and be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

Pg. 67
"Destroyed----Explodes!
The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP - hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting."

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



I guess when you get to this point of a discussion, you thank the Adepticon council for putting out a great FAQ.

As I noted in the other thread related to this question, there is another problem thats not being properly considered.

In 40k, specific rules > general rules. There are various general rules (such as models not moving within 1" of opponents models) that are superceded by more specific rules (units move into btb to assault).

On pg 67 we have a specific rule under Destroyed - explodes that tells us very specifically what to do with a transported unit in such a vehicle: "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be". That this happens to be less restrictive in one way than the normal disembarking rules is of no matter (its more restrictive in another way, cant disembark up to 2" away), it quite specifically tells us exactly how the models must be placed.

If they had wished for the normal disembarking rules to apply then they could have simply used the langauage in the previous paragraph, however they did not. They made a distinction here. Perhaps since the transport vehicle is already within 1" of the opponents models they felt that this should also apply to the passengers...we do not know.

From a strict reading of the rules however, we do know exactly where the models are to be placed. Whether or not they disembark is unimportant....they do not follow the general rules for disembarking because in this case we have more specific rules.



Sliggoth

AgeOfEgos wrote:You can make it vague due to RAW (That's not terribly difficult to do) but it appears pretty clear RAI;

I really see no reason to try to argue with RAI. The fact that you have to bring it up means you have no real arguments.

I read the same line on page 66 as AgeOfEgos did, right in the first paragraph of EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING.

"However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

I'm fairly certain the word "may" refers only to embarking, followed by being forced to disembark, represents the exception to the rule in the previous sentence.

The line refers to a destroyed transport, not wrecked and/or exploded specifically, so I posit that any wrecked result forces the passengers to disembark. If they are forced to disembark, they must follow the disembarking rules.

I also posit that the Destroyed - explodes entry is written to clarify disembarkation when the transport model is removed before the passengers are placed. It isn't ironclad, but careful reading of the rulebook makes me think this is RAI.

Krak_kirby wrote:I read the same line on page 66 as AgeOfEgos did, right in the first paragraph of EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING.

"However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

I'm fairly certain the word "may" refers only to embarking, followed by being forced to disembark, represents the exception to the rule in the previous sentence.

The line refers to a destroyed transport, not wrecked and/or exploded specifically, so I posit that any wrecked result forces the passengers to disembark. If they are forced to disembark, they must follow the disembarking rules.

I also posit that the Destroyed - explodes entry is written to clarify disembarkation when the transport model is removed before the passengers are placed. It isn't ironclad, but careful reading of the rulebook makes me think this is RAI.

I agree with you...but even if we disagreed I would gladly play it however my opponent wanted to, provided I knew before hand. In reality, I can only think of one time this has came up (and this was mostly due to one of my buddies hemming his own rhino in). Completely surrounding a transport, getting a Destroyed! not Wreck result and not killing enough models in the ensuing explosion to allow placement....is rather rare.

Again however, this should make us grateful for all of the work put into the Adepticon FAQ.

Krak_kirby wrote:"However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

This rule is not in the explodes section. It is part of an introduction about transport vehicles, and its rules are overwritten by the new rules about placing models.

And seriously, stop bringing RAI into a RAW discussion. You've already scared away just about everyone on my side from this topic just by dragging it on with unfair arguments.