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.

Actually this just happened with me today with my Battle Psyker squad suffering perils of the warp and loosing 2 guys out of 7.

For ruling it ourselves: I would go with no morale check for two reasons:
1) Running away is intended to get to a safe place and inside a transport should be safer than the middle of the battle field
2) casualties than can be suffered inside a vehicle can be some what expected and the loss of guys isn't as serious as in the middle of the battle field.

>> I'd be really, really freaked out if a guy started shooting at me while I was sitting next to him in a vehicle. My first thought would be,"Quick, get out!"

Tao wrote:1) Running away is intended to get to a safe place and inside a transport should be safer than the middle of the battle field

In the vehicle where the driver won't listen to you and turn the damn thing around seems alot worse than bailing out and running away with your heads down to me.

Skinnattittar wrote:because you can't disembark during the shooting phase

Actually you can. When the enemy knocks out your transport during his shooting phase your troops disembark immediately. I agree that you can't voluntarily disembark in your own shooting phase, but a potential emergency disembarkation generated by a casualty morale check isn't a voluntary action.

But I think this is going to be an extremely rare occurrence. Most of us will never see it in game.

I would talk to your gaming group about this, they way I see it you have two options:

They are destroyed (as per RAW)

or

They disembark and head for the hills!


Gwar's argument is a thin excuse at best, if a unit cannot move it is destroyed. If you want more proof read the rule book printed in a different language.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:?????? It is a Typo.

Yes it is a "Rules Lawyer" way of reading the rules

QFT.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:?????? It is a Typo.

Then where is the Errata saying so? Oh, there isn't any, ergo it is not a typo. Yes it is a "Rules Lawyer" way of reading the rules, but thats what the RaW says.

The main problem is that the rules are written from the perspective of a unit not inside a Transport, which is why the wording works, as a Unit that is unable to make their fall back move by definition cannot make it because they would have to double back because of models in the way.

Its not the "Rules Lawyer" way of reading or you wouldn't have missed out my question ... If a unit cannot make a full move in any direction or double back what happens?

The answer is they are destroyed ... otherwise by your "Rules Lawyering" any time a unit cannot make a full fall-back move so long as it doesn't move or move back on its self it isn't trapped.

And Is GW known for fixing mistake? Is it likely that they'll ever add an Errata along the lines of please insert a "," in "Trapped If a unit cannot perform a full fall back movement in any direction without doubling back, it is destroy." So it now reads "Trapped If a unit cannot perform a full fall back movement in any direction, without doubling back, it is destroy."? No its not since there is already a list of faulty rules and typos nearly as big as BGB.