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.

This rule is not in the explodes section. It is part of an introduction about transport vehicles,

So the rules about disembarking are clear. Please read this thread. Everyone arguing against the 1" rule did so on the assumption that the vehicle explodes result is not disembarking. However the rules on page 79 clearly state that it is considered a forced disembarkation and hence the disembarking rules apply.

The reason everyone on your side has been "scared" away is because as soon as Kirsanth posted that quote their argument was done.

Your assertation that you blindly follow the 2 sentences under the vehicle explodes result implies you can place models on top of each other if you are ignoring the rest of the rule book and it would require that each section in the rule book to contain the entire rulebook to that point explaining that all normal rules apply...

RaW is clear and in this case follows RaI as has been proven on this thread.

FlingitNow wrote:

This rule is not in the explodes section. It is part of an introduction about transport vehicles,

So the rules about disembarking are clear. Please read this thread. Everyone arguing against the 1" rule did so on the assumption that the vehicle explodes result is not disembarking. However the rules on page 79 clearly state that it is considered a forced disembarkation and hence the disembarking rules apply.
.

No, it doesnt prove anything. There are rules for explodes! results. It doesnt matter if codex books or other rules imply anything. The rule specifically states to place your models where the vehicle used to be. That's it.

Even if it were disembarking (Im certainly not saying it is), there are more specific rules telling you what to do with an explodes result. The rule right before it specifies what you must do. A 6 roll does not tell you to do this. It does not restrict you in anyway.

And most importantly, you need to stop saying "RaW supports this"...No it doesnt. There is a rule for explodes. It does not have the rule as written to be 1" away. What you have are called assumptions - assuming that because the rule has a few indirect secondary references that they somehow trump the actual rules.

Oh yes, and believe me, if anyone is "scared away", it is due to the complete lack of comprehension and reading skills shown by the "1 inchers" who make silly posts with irrelevant points, and somehow claim "RaW".

Also, RaI is certainly not on your side.

No, it doesnt prove anything. There are rules for explodes! results. It doesnt matter if codex books or other rules imply anything. The rule specifically states to place your models where the vehicle used to be. That's it.

Even if it were disembarking (Im certainly not saying it is), there are more specific rules telling you what to do with an explodes result. The rule right before it specifies what you must do. A 6 roll does not tell you to do this. It does not restrict you in anyway.

And most importantly, you need to stop saying "RaW supports this"...No it doesnt. There is a rule for explodes. It does not have the rule as written to be 1" away. What you have are called assumptions - assuming that because the rule has a few indirect secondary references that they somehow trump the actual rules.

Oh yes, and believe me, if anyone is "scared away", it is due to the complete lack of comprehension and reading skills shown by the "1 inchers" who make silly posts with irrelevant points, and somehow claim "RaW".

Also, RaI is certainly not on your side.

Firstly RaI is obviously on my side. That is beyond question.

Secondly the section under wrecked doesn't state that all normal rules apply (i.e. the 1" rule) as it doesn't have to all normal rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

The rules state that Disembarking is a type of movement and the normal rules for movement apply (i.e. no placing within 1"). The rules state that the explosion results in a force disembarkation. Hence the disembarking rules apply.

This is RaW whether you like it or not the rules are very clear. It specifies that the explosion result is a forced disembarkation on page 79, it specifies the rules for disembarkation on page 67. It specifies on this same page the exceptions to those rules that you make when an explodes result is rolled.

These are the facts:

1) When disembarking you are not allowed with in 1" of an enemy model.

2) The explodes result is a forced disembark move.

You have no evidence to back up you claim other than we should ignore the rest of the rule book which means by your interpretation you can place models on top of each other...

FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly RaI is obviously on my side. That is beyond question.

The rules state that the explosion results in a force disembarkation. Hence the disembarking rules apply.

This is RaW whether you like it or not the rules are very clear. It specifies that the explosion result is a forced disembarkation on page 79, it specifies the rules for disembarkation on page 67. It specifies on this same page the exceptions to those rules that you make when an explodes result is rolled.

These are the facts:

1) When disembarking you are not allowed with in 1" of an enemy model.

2) The explodes result is a forced disembark move.

You have no evidence to back up you claim other than we should ignore the rest of the rule book which means by your interpretation you can place models on top of each other...

Everything you are saying is unsupported or fabricated. Again.

A non-specific statement that passengers may be disembarked forcibly if their transport is destroyed (overwriting the normal disembarking restriction) DOES NOT change the RAW of the explodes result rules to force it to use disembarking. Claiming that the rules state that explodes is a forced disembark subject to the disembark rules is entirely spurious.

You have no RAW legs to stand on, and your RAI stance is based on opinion and conjecture.
It is certainly not 'obviously... beyond question' as you have claimed.

FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly RaI is obviously on my side. That is beyond question.

Secondly the section under wrecked doesn't state that all normal rules apply (i.e. the 1" rule) as it doesn't have to all normal rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

The rules state that Disembarking is a type of movement and the normal rules for movement apply (i.e. no placing within 1"). The rules state that the explosion results in a force disembarkation. Hence the disembarking rules apply.

This is RaW whether you like it or not the rules are very clear. It specifies that the explosion result is a forced disembarkation on page 79, it specifies the rules for disembarkation on page 67. It specifies on this same page the exceptions to those rules that you make when an explodes result is rolled.

These are the facts:

1) When disembarking you are not allowed with in 1" of an enemy model.

2) The explodes result is a forced disembark move.

You have no evidence to back up you claim other than we should ignore the rest of the rule book which means by your interpretation you can place models on top of each other...

I have never seen such an ignorant, yet determined poster on here. Everything you just said is 100% BS. None of it is supported. This stuff is about as useful as the rule stating "these are guidelines, have fun".

Whether you like it or not, everything you just said is irrelevant and completely useless when discussing the explosion rule.

The fact that you keep saying "this is clear", "this is RaW", etc. just shows completely ignorance and some sort of desperation to win an internet debate. It is obviously not clear, and it is obviously not RaW, or else this wouldnt be on page 7. Im not one to flame people, but I can't believe how someone can completely ignore facts and say "Im right, youre wrong" when using rules that dont even apply! Its mind boggling.

I think FlingitNow may not understand RAW and RAI completely, but what he's saying isn't 100% complete Ballistic Skill

With the rules examples on page 66 and 79, it can now be argued RAW that any destroyed result on a vehicle (or a building), results in a forced disembark move.

The results on the wrecked and explodes table for effects on passengers don't spell out everything that must be done, only those things that alter the normal disembarkation rules, and the order they must be done. In the case of the explodes result, the passengers don't disembark before the vehicle is removed, so it is spelled out how they may be placed when you have no more access points to measure from.

Point in case, the wrecked result specifies after all passenger effects are resolved, the vehicle becomes a wreck. The Explodes result does not instruct you to remove the vehicle model, you have to go to the damage results table on pg. 61 and perform the actions listed there first. If the models have to disembark then they follow the disembarkation rules with the exceptions listed under the Results on Passenger table.

The explodes result doesn't mention disembarkation specifically, because in the order presented the vehicle is no longer on the table to disembark from. It isn't an exception to all the disembarkation rules, just a clarification when you have no access points to disembark from. If the entry was written to allow placement within an inch, it needed to be more specific. Do the models have to be placed inside the footprint of the exploded transport, or can they just be touching the footprint?

It doesn't mention vehicle removal either, except to refer where the models may be placed. You must follow page 61 results first.

The explodes result also doesn't spell out what happens to surviving passengers that don't fit in the space provided. You have to refer to pg. 13 to resolve that problem. Whenever something isn't spelled out completely, you must refer to the relevant rules section to resolve the problem.

Being forced to refer to rules on another page or in another section doesn't invalidate what must be done.

Krak_kirby wrote:With the rules examples on page 66 and 79, it can now be argued RAW that any destroyed result on a vehicle (or a building), results in a forced disembark move.

No, these say that the passengers MAY be forced to disembark if the transport is DESTROYED. We know that a wrecked result forces disembarkation. This satisfies both of the examples (one of which is irrelevant anyway). Applying it to more areas when it doesn't tell you to is wrong.

Krak_kirby wrote:Being forced to refer to rules on another page or in another section doesn't invalidate what must be done.

I never said this. The problem is when you apply rules that are not valid to begin with. What would you think of me if we were playing and I stopped you from moving because armor saves may not be taken against weapons that ignore armor?

Krak_kirby wrote:The explodes result also doesn't spell out what happens to surviving passengers that don't fit in the space provided. You have to refer to pg. 13 to resolve that problem. Whenever something isn't spelled out completely, you must refer to the relevant rules section to resolve the problem.

I have two issues with this:
1. What are these magical rules on page 13?
2. How are the disembarkation rules specifically relevant to exploding?

I've not been scared away, per se, but I recognise that there's no point in attempting to construct a logical argument, because FlingIt isn't willing to so much as consider other points of view, even when based on logic.

He's not only convinced that his way of doing things is right, he's also convinced that there are no other possible interpretations.

So -- unscared, but also unwilling to waste time making points that will just be ignored.

The line on page 66 does not read that "passengers MAY be forced to disembark if the transport is DESTROYED". The full sentence is this - " However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

"They may embark and be forced to disembark" is the exception to the rule preventing embarking and disembarking in the same player turn. "They MAY embark" is followed by "AND THEN be forced to disembark". That's basic sentence structure. The may refers to the embarking only.

And I never put any words in your mouth, thebetter1. Why do you accuse me of doing so?

The rule on page 13 that I was referring to is about impassable terrain, and that all models count as such. The point I was making was that the explodes result on passengers don't spell out every possible interaction with the rules. We have to reference other rules on other pages to resolve the explodes result and what happens to the passengers. This includes the embarking and disembarking rules, which are rules, even if they aren't in a little table or chart.

Krak_kirby wrote:
The rule on page 13 that I was referring to is about impassable terrain, and that all models count as such. The point I was making was that the explodes result on passengers don't spell out every possible interaction with the rules. We have to reference other rules on other pages to resolve the explodes result and what happens to the passengers. This includes the embarking and disembarking rules, which are rules, even if they aren't in a little table or chart.

The rule on page 13 places a restriction on placing models, and is specifically referenced through the invoking action of placing models. Using it as an example of why we should be using unreferenced or uninvoked rules (such as the specific disembarking action) is entirely wrong.

Krak_kirby wrote:
"They may embark and be forced to disembark" is the exception to the rule preventing embarking and disembarking in the same player turn. "They MAY embark" is followed by "AND THEN be forced to disembark". That's basic sentence structure. The may refers to the embarking only.

While that is a valid English reading of the sentence (as is the reading you are calling invalid...), even that reading still does not force all destroyed results to use disembarking. It is not a valid RAW support for changing the explodes rule.

The point I was making is that the explodes result under effects on passengers forces us to reference other rules, it is not complete in itself. It does not spell out what to do if the surviving passengers don't fit for placement. The rules on page 13 regarding impassable terrain tell us we can't stack our models to fit 20 orks in a space only 14 can fit in. If my opponent tries to do so, I can show him page 13.

As for the embarking and disembarking sentence, thebetter1 didn't have "may" in the proper place. In the context of the paragraph, "may" is being used as the exception to the rule against embarking and disembarking in the same player turn. If we establish RAW that any wrecked result forces disembarking, and that the text in the explodes result is clarification of passenger placement when no access points remain, then we continue to use any rules that apply to the situation.

Krak_kirby wrote:The point I was making is that the explodes result under effects on passengers forces us to reference other rules, it is not complete in itself. It does not spell out what to do if the surviving passengers don't fit for placement. The rules on page 13 regarding impassable terrain tell us we can't stack our models to fit 20 orks in a space only 14 can fit in. If my opponent tries to do so, I can show him page 13.

It forces you to refer to other rules governing the actions it invokes. It doesn't force you to refer to other pages for anything else.
The fact that it doesn't tell you what to do with unplacable models is indeed a clear omission, but no such general rule exists to refer to. That doesn't mean you can go off and include an unapplied outside rule, however.

Can any of the 1" rule supporters find any proof that you actually went through the process of disembarking? the 1" distance was broken once the enemy models assulted the tank. the members inside the tank (which is no longer there) have not MOVED within 1" of enemy models. they have always been there. there is no rule that states you cannot be within 1" of your apponent, the rule is that you cannot MOVE within 1" WITH OUT assulting that unit> the reason why models are destroyed if a 5 is rolled and the tank is surrounded is because the tank still exists requiring the unit to perform the action of disembarking following the disembarking rules. ie. leaving from access points.

basically you should not follow the disembark rules until some one can prove that the actual process of disembarking has been preformed. IMO

witchcore wrote:the reason why models are destroyed if a 5 is rolled and the tank is surrounded is because the tank still exists requiring the unit to perform the action of disembarking following the disembarking rules. ie. leaving from access points.

*and the wrecked result specifically adds the caveat that they are destroyed
Just to make that clear.

This isn't going anywhere... and since it's starting to get a little heated, I think it's time for everyone involved to give it a rest.