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.

The Green Git wrote:You're taking the emergency disembark passage out of it's context and applying it to a different part of the rules.

No, I'm not. I'm taking it in its context, as a part of the rules for disembarking. It's not a separate rules section. It's not even a separate paragraph.

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?

That would be because emergency disembarking can also happen on your own turn. It doesn't mean that it can only happen on your own turn?

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.

Ok. Why?

What leads you to believe that emergency disembarking is a separate and distinct action from disembarking, that can only be performed on your own turn.

It isn't listed as such in the disembarking rules. No mention of it only being available in your own turn. No mention of it being separate.

It is simply listed as something that you can choose to do if you are disembarking and can't place the models within 2" of the access points. As a part of the disembarking rules. In the same paragraph, in fact.

To pluck that section out and apply it to the damage effects on passengers section is wishful thinking.

That's just it, though. I'm not the one 'plucking it out'

I'm including it as a part of the disembarking rule. Where it is actually placed in the rulebook.

You're taking it out of that rules section and trying to count it as a separate, stand-alone rule.

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.

It doesn't need to say that they can emergency disembark, as emergency disembarking is just a part of the disembarking process.

This same distinction has been applied to rams and tank shocks... I'm just carrying it to it's logical extension here.

The big difference there is that Rams and Tank Shocks are two separate and distinct rules sections.

An 'emergency disembark' is not a normal disembark,

It's not a normal disembarkation, but it is a part of the rules for disembarking.

The Wrecked rules tell you to disembark. So you follow the rules for disembarking.

That means, as I said before:
You place the models within 2" of the access points.
If that is impossible, you perform an emergency disembark.
If that is impossible, you can not disembark.
Due to the Wrecked rule, if you can not disembark, you are destroyed.

Nothing in the Wrecked rule suggests that you only apply half of the rules for disembarking. It's not a matter of the rules not saying I can't. It's a matter of the rules saying 'apply this rule' and that meaning 'apply this rule' and not just 'apply half of this rule'

Insaniak has provided a complete description of the sequence of events that happens.

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

I simply can't accept that. While i can't say, definitively, that I am right, I know enough about the game, with just a feel for the rules, that that is wrong. It just flies in the face of all the other rules. How can impassable be impassable if it in fact is QUITE passable with that? It just breaks the rules.

I'm not the codex, FAQ, or Errata guy, so Like I said, I'm not the final word, but I know we don't play it that way here, I haven't played it that way in any tournament, I haven't met any others ( save for yourself of course) who play it that way, and it doesn't seem to mesh with any of the other rules in the game.

Do with it what you would. All I know is I wouldn't let it fly in a friendly match ( I'd probably say roll a d6 for it as it's unlikely to come up beforehand and I try not to deliberately be TFG) and I would call in the tourney head for a ruling in a tournament.

That's all.

Well, the original question was not "do the rules support this" but "how will you play it?"

Don't I know it. That's why in the end-- if you think about how the situation is likely to develop-- the only fair thing to do is roll off.

I mean, think about it, the person going in with the vehicle against a pure horde and assuming they can ninja over the enemy models is likely only doing so BECAUSE they think their unit can still escape. If they knew they couldn't, they wouldn't allow it to happen in the first place.

Vice versa, the person swarming the enemy transport might not commit as many forces as required under the other guy's interpretation to completely cut off the unit's disembark because he thinks all he needs to do is surround the vehicle and then blammo. If he used a super-weak, but plentiful force to do this and assumed the unit inside was going to be dead, their sudden survival could be devastating.

Thus, with both player's having a real stake in the situation and both having failed to check with the other, I think a roll off is fair.

This is how I would likely play it.

And you think that was a realistic example.

It happened. In a game. So yes, it was a realistic example of how enemy units surrounding a wrecked vehicle can cause disembarking models to be destroyed. This isn't a theoryhammer example, it actually happened to me during play. Realistic does not equal commonplace. Do you truly not understand why this was a realistic example or do you just like to hear yourself type?

-GK

Sometimes I find the clicking noise rather snazzy. Its got its own little beat I can hum to.

Come on guys, let's keep it civil -- we may actually beat the 8 pg limit on posts before they devolve into the next best thing to death threats.

insaniak wrote:The big difference there is that Rams and Tank Shocks are two separate and distinct rules sections.

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock and is executed the same way..."

insaniak wrote:

An 'emergency disembark' is not a normal disembark,

It's not a normal disembarkation, but it is a part of the rules for disembarking.

OK, so it's a disembark that isn't a disembark... just like a ram is a tank shock that's not a tank shock?

insaniak wrote:Nothing in the Wrecked rule suggests that you only apply half of the rules for disembarking. It's not a matter of the rules not saying I can't. It's a matter of the rules saying 'apply this rule' and that meaning 'apply this rule' and not just 'apply half of this rule'

Again... disagree. No matter how many times you post what you think the sequence is, the section of the Damage Effects on Passengers table doesn't say "may disembark just as they would in the movement phase" or anything like that. It just says "disembark" and not "emergency disembark". If you want to argue that the models follow all the rules for disembarking then I can move too, right? Of course not. It's not the movement phase any more.

I'm just following the rules as written. The Damage Effects is an entirely different section of the book.

*sigh*

The rules pretty explicitly state that emergency disembark is a disembark that auto-triggers when you need to/have to/ are forced to, etc. disembark and are unable to because of surrounded exit points. It also handily adds that if 'even emergency disembark fails then the models that can't disembark are destroyed'

However, ignoring that grating, xeroxed point... It occurs to me that the very existence of the emergency disembark rule itself proves models cannot ninja over enemy units during disembarkment.

Why? Because--- if they could ninja over, why would the exits be considered "blocked" in the first place by surrounding models. A regular disembark, not an emergency one, would allow them to simply step over enemy models into safety.

If they cannot do it in a regular disembark, they certainly cannot in an emergency disembark. The only extra rules the emergency disembarkation give is that you can leave through ANY point of the vehicle--- namely you're turning all of the vehicle into an exit point-- which under the rules of regular deployment-- would be considered surrounded and blocked in the scenario of complete surrounding.

Edit: Come on guys, we're almost to 8 pages without vociferous hate-spewing , self aggrandizement, or people putting on the woe-is-me show, Let's give it the last push to 8 pages.

The Green Git wrote:

insaniak wrote:The big difference there is that Rams and Tank Shocks are two separate and distinct rules sections.

"Ramming is a special type of tank shock and is executed the same way..."

Sorry, but I have no idea what point you think you just made. Can you elaborate?

insaniak wrote:OK, so it's a disembark that isn't a disembark... just like a ram is a tank shock that's not a tank shock?

No, it's a disembark that's not a normal disembark, but is a part of the disembarking process.

Again... disagree. No matter how many times you post what you think the sequence is, the section of the Damage Effects on Passengers table doesn't say "may disembark just as they would in the movement phase" or anything like that. It just says "disembark" and not "emergency disembark". If you want to argue that the models follow all the rules for disembarking then I can move too, right? Of course not. It's not the movement phase any more.

So, again, please post the reason that you think that the emergency disembark is separate from the rules for disembarking, despite being listed in the disembarking section instead of as a separate rule.

There is no 'emergency disembarkation' section. Just a section that covers disembarking. When disembarking, you refer to that section. That section tells you how to disembark, which is as I have posted.

So, again, can you provide a rule that tells you to specifically ignore half of that section?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Dragon wrote:Why? Because--- if they could ninja over, why would the exits be considered "blocked" in the first place by surrounding models. A regular disembark, not an emergency one, would allow them to simply step over enemy models into safety.

Unless the enemy models aren't actually flush against the access point, are stacked more than one model deep, or are on larger than 25mm bases.

simple point, where does it state that you can hop over an enemy model to be 1" away. to disembarark you have to move from the vehicle this means moving on the ground. the men inside are dead.

RB

RB wrote:simple point, where does it state that you can hop over an enemy model to be 1" away. to disembarark you have to move from the vehicle this means moving on the ground. the men inside are dead.

Whether or not disembarking follows the movement rules has been one of the main points being debated throughout this thread...

I'll post this again as people didn't even want to consider it, because it is within the rules, and it mentions both deploy and movement. For all those deploy doesn't equal movement crowd.

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.

Yes, because we all know the Run Rules have EVERYTHING to do with the Deployment rules.

Obviously they do, because they mention deploy. This is exactly like the crowd that says deploy doesn't equal movement, because it isn't mentioned. Here I'm seeing the word deploy, because that is all they care about, mentioned in the context of movement, aka running. They can no longer argue deployment isn't movement, because it is in a movement rule. Therefore there whole argument of I'm placing and not moving falls apart.

sbeasley wrote:Therefore there whole argument of I'm placing and not moving falls apart.

By no stretch of the imagination does the fluff statement describing a run move you quoted impose normal movement restrictions on models performing a disembarkation.

That is why your quote was originally ignored. It is a fluff statement describing a run move. It is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

-GK

Oh, so now you can decide what is fluff, and what is a rule. Talk about absurdity. It is obvious that you want to redefine what words mean, and choose what is and isn't a rule in order to justify your blatant disregard for was intended and even IMO worded because deploy means to move, regardless of how the mechanic works it is still movement, because you can't move from the vehicle because the models aren't really in the vehicle. That is why they say place, because they don't scoot across the board from wherever you have them currently positioned.

sbeasley wrote:Oh, so now you can decide what is fluff, and what is a rule. Talk about absurdity.

Yes, I can. You can, too. It requires no remarkable powers of deduction. Use this as a rough, general guideline, and trust your gut:

If the text quoted provides instructions or restrictions telling the player how to perform some action or function in the game, it is a rule.

If the text quoted describes how a unit or action fits into the universe of 40k, or the story surrounding a game, it is fluff.

As an exercise, we'll apply that guideline to work out whether the following examples are fluff or rule. Both are from the same portion of Codex:IG p.36 regarding the "First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank, FIRE!" order.

Statement 1: "The Guardsmen unleash a fusillade of lasgun volleys into the enemy to the tempo of the officer's bellowed commands." Codex:IG p.36

While it references guardsmen and lasguns, this text isn't telling the player how to perform any action using those things in a game, so it is probably not a rule. It does seem to be describing how this action fits into the "story" of the battle. The officer yells FIRE, and the guardsmen fire. It is telling us how this action fits into the 40k universe. So we know this text is fluff, not rule.

Statement 2: "If the order is successfully issued, the ordered unit immediately shoots at any visible target. If the enemy is up to 12" away, models firing lasguns fire three shots, rather than just two. ..." Codex:IG p. 36

This text, by contrast, is telling the player how to perform an in-game action. It uses terms like "models" and specific measurements in inches, which indicate that it is not fluff. It also references and modifies other rules, such as the rule that lasguns typically fire two shots within 12". So we know this text is rule, not fluff.


Now, look again at the text you quoted. Apply the guidelines above. Is the text you quoted fluff or rule?

-GK

Also, sbeasly, as we have discovered before, the rulebook uses "deploy" in at least as many places that don't mean movement as it uses the word in places that imply movement.

The difference is that the places where you use the movement rules, the rulebook tells you "use the rules for movement."

My point is this, and finally this.

This is completely RAI after this, so that with a grain of salt.

If you were stupid enough to allow your vehicle to be surrounded and wrecked. You deserve what you get. Unit destroyed.

What you are suggesting allows for what was a strategic advantage to be punked by details of interpretation, and then you allow the player to take advantage of said interpretation to now take advantage of the player who was intended to have a strategic advantage in the first place.

Since this thread was originally about how you play it, you are currently being out voted 78% to 22%, so good luck getting this to fly, and not being smacked up the head for being TFG.

I have to agree though this post was to mainly get this thread up to 200 replies congratulations!!!

sbeasley wrote:My point is this, and finally this.

This is completely RAI after this, so that with a grain of salt.

If you were stupid enough to allow your vehicle to be surrounded and wrecked. You deserve what you get. Unit destroyed.

What you are suggesting allows for what was a strategic advantage to be punked by details of interpretation, and then you allow the player to take advantage of said interpretation to now take advantage of the player who was intended to have a strategic advantage in the first place.

Since this thread was originally about how you play it, you are currently being out voted 78% to 22%, so good luck getting this to fly, and not being smacked up the head for being TFG.

I would encourage you to read the first post of the thread. I'm not being "voted out." I'm being "voted with."

I also recognize, however, that how most people play it does not follow the rules of the game. Rather than trying to twist the rules to follow how I think the game should be played (passengers destroyed) I simply admit that the rules are absurd and play it differently. However, and I've said it before, if my opponent wanted to play strictly by the rules, it would be poor sportsmanship not to allow him to.