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.

phillosmaster wrote:I'd not argue that the rules are completely specific about anything. If the rules were absolutely specific we wouldn't need a YMTC board.

My point is that disembarking counts as moving because by exiting the vehicle you have started a movement. I mean you did physically move from inside a vehicle to the outside of said vehicle.

My arguement is the same arguement as yakface's. The rules are telling you that if you move after disembarking it's furthur movement. Therefore it doesn't need to explicitly state that you need to follow the rules of movement because you are moving. I don't see why we should assume it doesn't follow the rules just because it didn't explicitly state it does.

it does state that the unit counts as moving, pg 67 1st paragraph second bullet
" If the vehicle has not yet moved, then hte passengers may disembark and mover normally, the disembarked models may shoot (counting as moving), and may asault as normal."

the first bullet states that the unit may not move as normal but may shoot counting as moving and may not assault.

phillosmaster wrote:That's all true, which is why the arguement here is what happens when the vehicle is completely surrounded therefore necessitating a move through an enemy unit.

I'm under the impression the voluntary emergancy disembarkation explodes the vehicle, forcing models inside to take a dangerous terrain test, creating a crater where the vehicle was, cover for people in crater, difficult terrain... etc

If this is the case, wouldn't the model inside be placed where the vehicle WAS?

Please, GWAR!, if you are on lemme know if I am mistaken.

-----EDIT----

NVM - I read the book again, Musta been a house rule or something

I noticed you guys were still arguing. Then I looked at the thread title again.

How will you play it? Vehicles surrounded by 25mm bases and disembarking.

I put some emphasis on some really important stuff. What do you honestly think is going to happen when you tell someone your playing against that since you surrounded the transport everything in it dies instead of getting to do anything. Kind of lame huh?

I know it says it nowhere in the rules (and because the rules are very unclear) I'd just say the unit inside the transport enters assault with the unit that surrounded the transport.

Because I honestly don't think anyone down at my FLGS just wants nothing to really happen, and just have a bunch of their dudes toasted.

But you have tournaments to play in, so keep going. It's important for that.

he was asking what happens... i wasn't arguing

cept right there....
and there....
and there....

Typeline wrote:I noticed you guys were still arguing. Then I looked at the thread title again.

How will you play it? Vehicles surrounded by 25mm bases and disembarking.

I put some emphasis on some really important stuff. What do you honestly think is going to happen when you tell someone your playing against that since you surrounded the transport everything in it dies instead of getting to do anything. Kind of lame huh?

Thats actually how I've always seen it played for the LAST THREE EDITIONS. I've never seen anyone who didn't play it that way. Frankly how would you? are the attackers surrounding the vehicle now sudenly surrounded themselves even though you can't have minis within 1in of an opponent unless they are in assualt? Thats a new one.

Frazzled wrote:

Typeline wrote:I noticed you guys were still arguing. Then I looked at the thread title again.

How will you play it? Vehicles surrounded by 25mm bases and disembarking.

I put some emphasis on some really important stuff. What do you honestly think is going to happen when you tell someone your playing against that since you surrounded the transport everything in it dies instead of getting to do anything. Kind of lame huh?

Thats actually how I've always seen it played for the LAST THREE EDITIONS. I've never seen anyone who didn't play it that way. Frankly how would you? are the attackers surrounding the vehicle now sudenly surrounded themselves even though you can't have minis within 1in of an opponent unless they are in assualt? Thats a new one.

THIS!

That is why you can block entrances from say waveserpents with normal models and with jetbikes etc. It just works that way.

Typeline wrote:I noticed you guys were still arguing. Then I looked at the thread title again.

How will you play it? Vehicles surrounded by 25mm bases and disembarking.

I put some emphasis on some really important stuff. What do you honestly think is going to happen when you tell someone your playing against that since you surrounded the transport everything in it dies instead of getting to do anything. Kind of lame huh?

I know it says it nowhere in the rules (and because the rules are very unclear) I'd just say the unit inside the transport enters assault with the unit that surrounded the transport.

Because I honestly don't think anyone down at my FLGS just wants nothing to really happen, and just have a bunch of their dudes toasted.

But you have tournaments to play in, so keep going. It's important for that.

pg 67 states in the 1st paragraph that you cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy model, your transport is completelty surrounded therefore you cannot disembark, and since your models cant be placed, they are destroyed when the vehicle wrecks.

as for an explosion the unit is placed where the vehicle was, the only problem is that it doesnt state anything about what happens if you cant place your unit ouside of 1" from the enemy unit. id assume any that cant be placed would be destroyed aswell.

I just noticed something... on pg 67 in the section Effects of Damage Results on Passengers it states under Destroyed-Wrecked:

"The passengers must immediately disembark (emphasis mine) and then take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed."

Note that this does not allow for an "emergency disembark" but ONLY a "disembark" action. An "emergency disembark" is NOT a "disembark" and according to the rules as written, the unit is destroyed. It says so in black and white.

Thank you, thank you very much.

IronHands wrote:the first bullet states that the unit may not move as normal but may shoot counting as moving and may not assault.

Models arriving by deep strike have a similar rule.

"In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous Movement phase." BGB p. 95

Deepstriking models do not have to follow the "normal movement restrictions" and still count as having moved. Disembarking models are similarly unrestricted in how they move, the only restrictions created by the rules restrict where the models end up.

Frazzled wrote:Frankly how would you? are the attackers surrounding the vehicle now sudenly surrounded themselves even though you can't have minis within 1in of an opponent unless they are in assualt?

Due to the size of the assaulting models' 25mm bases, the passengers could meet the requirements of being placed within 2" of the vehicle's hull AND not within 1" (25.4mm) of an enemy model... which is all the rules require.

IronHands wrote:pg 67 states in the 1st paragraph that you cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy model, your transport is completelty surrounded therefore you cannot disembark, and since your models cant be placed, they are destroyed when the vehicle wrecks.

The issue raised by the original poster is that models *can* be placed within 2" of the vehicle's hull AND not within 1" of an enemy model. Which is all the disembarkation rules require. The disembarkation rules do not restrict disembarking models from coming within 1" of an enemy model on the way there. A disembarkation is best described as model placement or model deployment, not model movement, because these models are beginning the action off-board and have no pre-determined "starting point" for the action.



Also, arguments based on "how I imagine this would work if these toys were real soldiers" are particularly unpersuasive. Imaginations can, and do, vary. For example, while it is perfectly plausible that the surrounding assaulters would annihilate anything climbing out the access points of a now-wrecked vehicle, it is just as plausible that a genetically enhanced supersoldier from the future would easily be able to climb out a top hatch and leap heroically over the heads of surrounding foes to safety.


-GK

The Green Git wrote:Note that this does not allow for an "emergency disembark" but ONLY a "disembark" action. An "emergency disembark" is NOT a "disembark" and according to the rules as written, the unit is destroyed. It says so in black and white.

Sorry, but this is wrong.

An emergency disembarkation is a method of disembarking that is used if the models can not disembark normally.

It is still a type of disembarkation. It's not a separate action. It is listed in the Disembarking section, is specifically allowed when models can not disembark normally, and is specifically referred to as a form of disembarkation in that section.

So if the rules allow you to Disembark, then you are allowed an emergency disembarkation is normal disembarkation is not possible.

GiantKiller wrote:

The issue raised by the original poster is that models *can* be placed within 2" of the vehicle's hull AND not within 1" of an enemy model. Which is all the disembarkation rules require. The disembarkation rules do not restrict disembarking models from coming within 1" of an enemy model on the way there. A disembarkation is best described as model placement or model deployment, not model movement, because these models are beginning the action off-board and have no pre-determined "starting point" for the action

my understanding of the way the rules for disembaking work is any of the models base cannot be placed outside of the 2" zone, I could be wrong. but the rulebook does state that the model is deployed within the 2" area. that diagram shown on the page has one model clearly outside of the 2" zone so I wouldent take it as a true representation of what can be done.

Plus how would a guy get from inside the vehicle through the enemy unit and onto the other side of them without being stabed, shot, flogged, or any sort of other natsy thing happening to them. To me that would constitute movment through an enemy unit.

Ps arguments like this is probly why this thread is going on and on.

insaniak wrote:Sorry, but this is wrong.

An emergency disembarkation is a method of disembarking that is used if the models can not disembark normally.

And this is where RAW cuts you off at the knees. It says if the unit cannot *DISEMBARK* then it is *DESTROYED* and not "may emergency disembark".

The Green Git wrote:
And this is where RAW cuts you off at the knees. It says if the unit cannot *DISEMBARK* then it is *DESTROYED* and not "may emergency disembark".

im inclined to agree

IronHands wrote:my understanding of the way the rules for disembaking work is any of the models base cannot be placed outside of the 2" zone, I could be wrong.

Respectfully, you are wrong. Please revisit the diagram on p. 67, and note the caption: "All of the Space Marines have disembarked within 2" of the transport's access points." BGB p. 67. That includes the space marine with the missile launcher whose base is 99.9% outside the 2" zone.

The Green Git wrote:It says if the unit cannot *DISEMBARK* then it is *DESTROYED* and not "may emergency disembark".

I agree with you that *models* which cannot disembark are destroyed according to the destroyed-wrecked entry. "Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed." BGB p. 67 (emphasis added). However, emergency disembarkation is part of disembarkation. In fact, a model's ability to make an emergency disembarkation is part of the tests to see if a model can or cannot disembark. Here's a flow-chart of sorts:

1. Can the model disembark in coherency within 2" of an access point without landing in impassible terrain or within 1" of enemy models? If yes, do it. If not,
2. Can the model make an emergency disembarkation within 2" of the hull without landing in impassible terrain or within 1" of enemy models? If yes, do it, if not, the model cannot disembark.

We know it's part of the test because of this line: "If even this [emergency] disembarkation is impossible, they can't disembark." BGB p. 67

You don't destroy the models until you know they can't disembark. You don't know if the model "cannot disembark" until they've tried an emergency disembarkation according to the line quoted above. If they can make an emergency disembarkation, they're not destroyed.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote:
That includes the space marine with the missile launcher whose base is 99.9% outside the 2" zone.

There has to be some sort of % limit on that or you could technicly place the model anywhare on the table and claim theres at least 1 atomic particle within 2" of the transport even if its 0.000000000000000000000000000~01 of the model.


theres really only 2 fair ways of resolving the delema, 4+ it , or call in a 3rd party

that and still have it verify with the 1" from the enemy model


Automatically Appended Next Post:
really, how are you going to measure that?

There has to be some sort of % limit on that or you could technicly place the model anywhare on the table and claim theres at least 1 atomic particle within 2" of the transport even if its 0.000000000000000000000000000~01 of the model.

Your reductio ad absurdem argument fails to impress. The limit is represented in that diagram on P.67. That diagram merely requires the disembarking model's base to be touching the 2" zone, however slightly. A model anywhere else on the table is not touching the 2" zone.

-GK

The Green Git wrote:And this is where RAW cuts you off at the knees. It says if the unit cannot *DISEMBARK* then it is *DESTROYED* and not "may emergency disembark".

It doesn't say that they can't perform an emergency disembark at all.

Again, emergency disembarkation is not a separate action. It's a part of the rules for Disembarking.

When you disembark, you place the models within 2" of an access point.
If that is impossible, you perform an emergency disembark.
If that is impossible, you can not disembark.


The Wrecked damage result changes that last point by specifying that models that can not disembark are destroyed, instead of simply being unable to disembark. It says nothing about changing the normal rules for disembarking in any other way.

The original argument is this:

"my transport is wecked, completely surrounded by guys on 25mm bases, can my guys emergency disembark from the tank, jump over your models and deploy on the other side of your models."

The answer to the question is apparently yes according to RAW. Tho it doesnt make sense but i guess its 40k so it doesnt have to.

But how often does this situation come up. the surounder would have to have the perfect ammont of models to surround the vehicle without doubbling up and the disembarker would have to do alot of careful placement to both stay within the 2" of the tank and outside 1" of the enemy.

ManwithIronHands wrote:But how often does this situation come up. the surounder would have to have the perfect amount of models to surround the vehicle without doubling up and the disembarker would have to do alot of careful placement to both stay within the 2" of the tank and outside 1" of the enemy.

More often than you might think. For an Ork army it is routine to be assaulting a vehicle with 20 or more models. Typically they contain less than ten passengers. Also, as an Ork general one will find close combat the most reliable form of anti-vehicle measure making assaults much more likely.

insaniak wrote:It doesn't say that they can't perform an emergency disembark at all.

Again, emergency disembarkation is not a separate action. It's a part of the rules for Disembarking.

When you disembark, you place the models within 2" of an access point.
If that is impossible, you perform an emergency disembark.
If that is impossible, you can not disembark.


The Wrecked damage result changes that last point by specifying that models that can not disembark are destroyed, instead of simply being unable to disembark. It says nothing about changing the normal rules for disembarking in any other way.

You're taking the emergency disembark passage out of it's context and applying it to a different part of the rules. Why would the rules specify "may not do anything else that turn" when the models being forced from the burning wreck could not normally do anything anyway? As pointed out already, an 'emergency disembark' is a move the owning player can choose to make when he would otherwise normally disembark of his own volition, on his turn and it is not required that the vehicle be wrecked to perform an emergency disembark. That's why the rules specify the models can do nothing else that turn. It's the owning players turn.

To pluck that section out and apply it to the damage effects on passengers section is wishful thinking. It does not say that the models can emergency disembark from a wreck, just that they must disembark and if they cannot disembark they are destroyed.

This same distinction has been applied to rams and tank shocks... I'm just carrying it to it's logical extension here. An 'emergency disembark' is not a normal disembark, it's a special type of disembark and is not explicitly allowed in the damage section rules. The rules are permissive, not exclusive. You can't argue "It doesn't say I can't emergency disembark" because it doesn't say I can't do a multitude of things. It just says I can *disembark*.

If I deploy my troops into dangerous terrain at the start of the game do they take a dangerous terrain test?

No, because I'm not moving them there, I'm placing (deploying) them.

And that is where my argument comes into play. The dictionary defines deployment as moving strategically. So you can't originate your deployment from the vehicle and end your deployment on the other side of my unit unless you have something that overrides moving through units. Like Jump Packs, Teleporting, Skimmer, etc.

As everyone knows specific > general

Move is general and deploy is specific. Deploy is a specific type of movement: moving strategically. Deploy doesn't specifically override the restriction on moving through units.

Deployment, in regard to WH40k, is placing.

My falcon doesn't vrooom vroom into a forest at the start of the game, I place it there.

People, on any one's side of the argument...

Please tell me this--- why would they EVER include the rules about models in a unit who are unable to deploy being destroyed if it was situationally impossible

which it seems to be by the way some of you haggle.

For those of you who want say OH I can completely ninja over models, etc. --- play against yourself here and tell us just WHEN they actually would be destroyed.

I want hard examples, measures, etc.

If you find it to be nigh but utterly impossible, chances are you're wrong. All I can think of is if you had 4 rhinos with one in the center boxed completely in by the other with people assaulting from the front.

You know why you're screwed then? Because you're surrounded by impassable.

You know what it is when there are enemy models on all sides-- the same. They're impassable.

I stand by my previous example way on earlier in the thread. If there were an impassable wall, 5" tall, completely solid and your transport was right next to it, would you say you can 'deploy' THROUGH the wall.

The answer is a resounding no.

Also, there have been a couple of few other good technical points which have been summarily ignored. I think the most important one is this-- even IF (and you can't) you jump through the models surrounding you and land on the other side-- you're likely within 1" of the enemy-- which is illegal.

Another fine thing I noticed is this-- lots of talk about Deep striking-- Guys, when you DS you can't land in impassable and if you land in difficult, you take a dangerous test--- Why? because it says you take the test for having moved into the difficult terrain. Deepstriking vehicles? You count as having moved 6".

There is something to be said about infiltrators "deploying" in difficult terrain with out having to take a test, but that's also very different-- They're actually starting the game there, statically. Units using the Scout move do have to take terrain tests and so do units DEPLOYING from vehicles into/through terrain-- it says so in the FAQ/Errata for the main 40k BGB.

I saw some mention on the words 'counts as moving' not meaning fully held to the rules of movement. I personally think this is ridiculous. That's like saying wings 'count as jump packs', but don't actually get to ignore intervening terrain because they're not ACTUALLY jump packs.

Counts as means = to, in my book.

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If 'counts as' always gets you the good stuff for all other models and special rules, I think it should dick you with movement restrictions as well.

The Dragon wrote:Please tell me this--- why would they EVER include the rules about models in a unit who are unable to deploy being destroyed if it was situationally impossible

which it seems to be by the way some of you haggle.

For those of you who want say OH I can completely ninja over models, etc. --- play against yourself here and tell us just WHEN they actually would be destroyed.

I want hard examples, measures, etc.

Happy to oblige. This situation happened to me in a doubles tournament game last year. Our team was lash chaos (me) and horde orks. Our opponents were Tau and Old Codex Guard. On my turn, I parked a rhino full of berzerkers next to a building classified as impassible terrain. On their turn, our opponents parked a chimera 1" from the front of the rhino, and some guardsmen surrounded most of the remaining two sides, at a distance of 1" as required by movement. In their shooting phase, the tau player wrecked the rhino. Most of the berzerkers could not be placed within 2" of the rhino's hull AND not in impassible terrain or within 1" of an enemy model, because of the building, the chimera, and the surrounding guardsmen. There was only room to place 2 or 3 models (thankfully the rule indicates that models which cannot disembark are destroyed, not units, which would indicate that the entire squad is destroyed if even one model cannot disembark), and the rest were destroyed. While my team went on to win the game and the tournament, I considered it a very "heads-up" play by our opponents and complimented them on it again afterword.

As for the rest of your arguments, "counting as moved" does not impose the normal movement restrictions on the models that are placed. Deep Strike is the perfect example. Deep striking models count as moved after they deep strike, but it would be ridiculous to impose the normal movement restrictions on them because a. we don't know where they're starting their supposed "move" from and b. the rules only define where the models can and cannot be placed, not how the models get there. Deploying from a vehicle is the same concept. It is a placement, not a movement. We don't have a starting point for the move, and the rules define only where the model can end up, not how it must move to arrive at that destination.


-GK

In addition to what giant killer has said, the reason why deepstriking models take dangerous terrain tests for difficult terrain is that we are told specifically that they do in the rules.

If deepstriking=movement then they would actually not take dangerous terrain tests, because difficult terrain only imposes dangerous terrain tests upon vehicles and jump infantry in normal circumstances.

As far as the 5" high wall goes, I believe it is another ridiculous situation that is perfectly permitted by the rules.

Also, if a vehicle is surrounded by 40mm or 60mm bases when it is destroyed, the unit inside would be destroyed, or if the unit were surrounded by multiple 25mm bases, so there are plenty of situations where the rule for not being able to disembark would come into play.

Well next time I surround a tansport with my nids ill have to put hte guys in so theres no area to place the embarked models in.

As long as you're following all the assault rules (including making sure that every model that can reach base to base does in fact move to B2B) then that's a good way to approach it.

GiantKiller wrote:

The Dragon wrote:Please tell me this--- why would they EVER include the rules about models in a unit who are unable to deploy being destroyed if it was situationally impossible

which it seems to be by the way some of you haggle.

For those of you who want say OH I can completely ninja over models, etc. --- play against yourself here and tell us just WHEN they actually would be destroyed.

I want hard examples, measures, etc.

Happy to oblige. ...

And you think that was a realistic example. Where it required vehicle, impassible terrain, and a unit, and still didn't get them all as you were still able to deploy part of the unit.

Let's consider this.

BGB Page 16: RUN wrote:At times, warriors may have to quickly redeploy, literally running from cover to cover or simply concentrating on movement and giving up their chance to shoot.

So right here I can see that when talking in context of both [re]deploy and movement are used in the same context.

willydstyle wrote:As long as you're falling all the assault rules (including making sure that every model that can reach base to base does in fact move to B2B) then that's a good way to approach it.

I play leaping nids, I guess id have to get a fex or tyrant in to destroy the damn thing and hope it doesnt explode or im bound to fry alot of hormies.