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.

am i reading this correctly...
when a vehicle moves faster than 12 inches and gets the "destroyed - wrecked" result on the damage chart, any transported troops just die?

the reason i ask this is because in the rulebook it says
a) a unit that is inside a vehicle that moved flat out (12-24) may not disembark.
b) the wrecked result states that any unit that can not disembark is destroyed.

That sounds correct.

I don't have my books handy, but I'm fairly certain the transported unit may not voluntarily disembark. A wrecked result would force a disembark. Not completely sure though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scary for Eldar mech if true...

There are two stipulations that you are missing, one is that they may not Disembark in the "movement phase" hence if they move over 12" and you blow them up, according to the Vehicle "wrecked/exploded" results they are forced to disembark, which they -can-

Second, their is another rule that can help as well. "emergency disembarkation" which lets a unit that cannot disembark, (example, you cover all the exits of a vehicle and then wreck it) disembark from the hull of the vehicle, but they cannot do anything that turn.

So no, they are not just "Destroyed" they actually disembark, the rule only limits them to disembarking on their movement phase

Emergency disembark is "if any models cannot diembark because of enemies or because they would end up in impassable terrain" not "if they cannot disembark".

I dunno. The bottom of page 70 states "passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if is has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase."

I take that last part, in particular "that movement phase" to mean the controller's phase so they would still be able to disembark if the vehicle is destroyed.

That's on interpretation anyway.

Edit:
Found another thread talking about this.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/266438.page

agnosto wrote:I dunno. The bottom of page 70 states "passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if is has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase."

I take that last part, in particular "that movement phase" to mean the controller's phase so they would still be able to disembark if the vehicle is destroyed.

That's on interpretation anyway.

Correct.
This means it (generally?) applies only to skimmers.

(example, you cover all the exits of a vehicle and then wreck it)

Emergency disembarkation causes a unit to be destroyed if their access points are covered by enemy units, i.e. a disembarking unit must be at least 1" away from enemy models and be 2" from the access point or be destroyed. This is on pg. 67 in the rulebook.

If a unit cannot disembark from a vehicle, due to enemy models or impassible terrain, then it is destroyed.

And a unit may not disembark on the turn that it embarks, or its transport moved 13"+.

However, a unit can be forced to disembark, and only if it cannot disembark will it be destroyed. Otherwise the unit can do nothing further that turn, and must take a pinning test.

So if a Falcon is moving Flat Out at 24" and its passengers may not disembark, and it takes an Immobilized result, converting to a Destroyed (Wrecked) result, then its passengers are forced to disembark and if they cannot then they are destroyed. Otherwise they can do nothing further that turn and may be forced to Go to Ground.

Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, and may not voluntarily both embark and disembark in the same player turn. However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed.

From pg. 66 at the top right in the rulebook.

so are you guys saying that the stipulation about not being able to disembark is only for voluntary disembarkation and excludes the wrecked result forced disembarkation?
i can believe what youre saying i just dont see it in the rules.

it says flat out that if you move over 12 you cant disembark... period.
wrecked says if you cant disembark you are destroyed.

i dont see a lot of wiggle room especially in regards to when it happens whether in the movement phase or not.

the explodes result allows for disembarkation so this also seems to indicate that you are not allowed to disembark with the wrecked result.

it says flat out that if you move over 12 you cant disembark... period.

Where? It certainly doesn't say that in my rulebook. It says they can't disembark that movement phase it says nothing about the following player turns shooting/assaulting phase (when the vehicle explodes/wrecked result would be applied).

FAST TRANSPORT VEHICLES -
passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase.

fixed my quote...

Sorry I completely misread the sentence. I'll blame my dyslexia In that case then yes the models are destroyed on a Wrecked result under RaW.

Just a small correction, I posted this in another thread not long ago:

On page 70 in my rulebook it says that "Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that Movement phase". It says that Movement phase, not the Movement phase. So username, I believe herin lies the caveat.

I read this as if you move flat out in your movement phase and your opponent destroys the trukk after his movement phase, then you haven't moved flat out in THAT movement phase, but in the previous one.

Kveldulv

yeah that seems right to me reading it that way. Certainly I think you are right in terms of the rules of the game not so sure about RaW but I think that looks right under RaW unless I'm missing something (which I obviously was before your post ).

interestiing, thanks.
so much for quoting something... funny how mistyping one word can change the meaning of a sentence.

its so discouraging that 40k can get so bogged down on the minutia of things like this.

its so discouraging that 40k can get so bogged down on the minutia of things like this.

40k doesn't but RaW does, if you want to use RaW for all your rules then it is just something you'll have to get used to. Otherwise just use the rules as best you can make sense of them and get a 3rd party (or allow the dice) to decide any disputes that aren't immediately obvious.

Flingit, count me as a crew member. I find that the best thing is to have a "judge" nearby even for friendly games - not to mark hostility or anything, just to make a ruling and otherwise be sort of a game master.

Username: Yeah, I've come across a few rule systems (and almost completely redesigning the d20-system once), and 40k is really one of the more vague I've seen. OT I know, but what if GW hired some developers from Magic The Gathering? Those guys all seem to have Law degrees or something - everything is based on clear definitions and sequences. The problem with 40k is that you have a competetive scene going AND vague rules, necessitating endless FAQs and tourny rules.

The problem with w40k is that you have a competetive scene going AND vague rules, necessitating endless FAQs and tourny rules.

I beg to differ....GW has always been a company that makes models, and then cobbles together a group of rules to try and make those models fit their games. Also I firmly believe that they playtest with a very low points total and not very often, but then again, thats just IMHO. Also they dont respond to repeated email requests for rules clarifications, and I'm sure one or two of those chuckleheads has heard of this site and others, and you would think they might update their FAQ once and awhile....but alas, you'll get none of that from GW.

~Bart

@Bart: Just saw your sig... I dig when people call him "The Emporer"!

but i think it should has some kinds of penalty for a flat out move. unit again a lot of advantage from flat out move. first it moves a extremely long distance, second it got 4+csv by doing so and 6+ to hit in melee. third, it can make a powerful ramming move. and now the only disadvantage is to treat immobilized as wreck. if in real life i do not thin the passenager will be ok if a super high speed vehicle is crashed, i can not imagine what happen if it exploded in high speed.

Dude, you're talking about skimmers now. A trukk can be fast with the wheels still (somewhat) on the ground!

And you'll need a 6 to hit any vehicle moving up to 12", not just fast vehicles. And yes, you pay for moving flat out by not being able to embark/disembark in your own turn - though the jury is still out on you being able to disembark in your opponents turn.

dpredator666 wrote:if in real life i do not thin the passenager will be ok if a super high speed vehicle is crashed, i can not imagine what happen if it exploded in high speed.

haahahahahahah!!! can you imagine how armour can save you from melta-bombs? or what the real effect of a D-Cannon would do to someone?

witchcore wrote:

dpredator666 wrote:if in real life i do not thin the passenager will be ok if a super high speed vehicle is crashed, i can not imagine what happen if it exploded in high speed.

haahahahahahah!!! can you imagine how armour can save you from melta-bombs? or what the real effect of a D-Cannon would do to someone?

That was random, but at least you didn't say 'embark'. After reading through this thread the word had almost lost all meaning.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

witchcore wrote:

dpredator666 wrote:if in real life i do not thin the passenager will be ok if a super high speed vehicle is crashed, i can not imagine what happen if it exploded in high speed.

haahahahahahah!!! can you imagine how armour can save you from melta-bombs? or what the real effect of a D-Cannon would do to someone?

That was random, but at least you didn't say 'embark'. After reading through this thread the word had almost lost all meaning.

I was mearly pointing out how useless it is to argue the in real life debate. Which is also brought up in the tenets of you make the call

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

I think that the "In that movement phase is just simply stating that if the vehicle moved flat out in "that movement phase", that no disembarkation is possible until it hits a movement phase it doesn't move flat out.

We have been playing it this way since lauch and it does work quite well.

I believe it is even clarified as well in the Adepticon rules as well. (At work now so can't check.)

Well, assuming that by Adepticon rules you mean the INAT:

RB.70H.01 – Q: If a transport vehicle is „Destroyed‟ in the same movement phase it is declared to be moving „flat out‟ (when ramming another vehicle, for example) are the models onboard destroyed?
A: Yes, in this case all models onboard count as being destroyed [clarification].

Notice that they mention same movement phase................??

"that movement phase" is referring to the movement phase in which the vehicle moved flat out. Nothing states or indicates that the inability to disembark carries over past that movement phase. It's really that simple.