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.

1. Getting out of a vehicle is disembarking, regardless of how you get out of the vehicle.

2. p.67: If a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers...

3. The rulebook just told us that when destroyed or wrecked, the passengers disembark.

4. When disembarking, there several rules dictating where to play your models, and where they may or may not be placed in relation to other models.

In the case of a vehicle exploding, the models being placed into the now-defunct vehicle's footprint aren't referred to as "now afoot" or "on the ground" they're referred to as "now disembarked." IE, vehicle explodes, passengers disembark into the vehicle footprint, following disembarking rules.

If you surround a vehicle, assault it and cause it to be exploded...the placement of the models changes due to the action of the vehicle exploding, but it still tells you that they are disembarking, and disembarking has its own rules to follow.

The movement phase rules on page 11, talking about 'models in the way' while moving, state that 'A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting'.

This has nothing to do with placing units after an explodes result, that I can see.

So what happens in the next turn? The disembarked squad is now in a paradox during the movement phase as it is within 1" of the enemy...

FlingitNow wrote:

The movement phase rules on page 11, talking about 'models in the way' while moving, state that 'A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting'.

This has nothing to do with placing units after an explodes result, that I can see.

So what happens in the next turn? The disembarked squad is now in a paradox during the movement phase as it is within 1" of the enemy...

How, exactly, is this a paradox? The models simply can't move or run.

There are other rules situations where models can be within 1" of eachother and not locked in assault.
If you assault a tank and don't blow it up, can it move next turn aside from tank shocking? Can you move next turn aside from assaulting? You're within 1" of enemy models. Oh noes, paradox.

I think Dashofpepper hit the nail on the head. Thanks Dash, I know exactly what to reference if this comes up at a tourney.

Krak_kirby wrote:I think Dashofpepper hit the nail on the head. Thanks Dash, I know exactly what to reference if this comes up at a tourney.

If you brought it up at a tourney I would have an equal amount of evidence stating otherwise, except my arguments wouldnt be based on assumptions.

{quote]If you brought it up at a tourney I would have an equal amount of evidence stating otherwise, except my arguments wouldnt be based on assumptions.

Gorkamorka wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Barthonis wrote: the rules do not state you have to maintain a 1 inch minimum in this case.

Indeed they do, as the models are not assaulting.

Are they moving? Is there a general rule that says you cannot be 'placed' within 1" of an enemy model?

Maybe I'm missing the argument against, do you have page numbers that show that 'being placed' is movement in this case or that you cannot be 'placed' within 1" of an enemy model?

Don't need one. YOU need to prove that you are allowed to place them within an inch. There is only ONE general exception to that in the rulebook that I can think of, the assault move. Without something specifically granting you the ability to move (ie place) the model within an inch, you cannot do it.

I think the poorly written rules are going to require some wrangling no matter how you dissect them.

@Dashofpepper: The rules don't say passengers disembark when the vehicle explodes... it assumes they ARE disembarked. Important distinction. Disembarking is the action... disembarked is the state. They are distinct. If the vehicle explodes around me I'm disembarked immediately.

How I Would Play It: The models are placed within the footprint of the exploded vehicle, just like it says. In a way the rules for assaulting a squad that has been disembarked from a destroyed transport support the deploying of passengers within the footprint as the two are treated interchangeably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote: YOU need to prove that you are allowed to place them within an inch. There is only ONE general exception to that in the rulebook that I can think of, the assault move. Without something specifically granting you the ability to move (ie place) the model within an inch, you cannot do it.

The rule allowing you to place them within one inch is the rule that tells you to place the passengers where the exploded vehicle was. If the vehicle was within one inch of another model and you place the passengers where the vehicle was then they are within one inch...

Sorry dash of pepper has it how can you dispute what he's said? No assumptions using both the letter of the law and (more importantly) the meaning and reasoning behind the law

Have you even read these topics? Seriously. No where does it state within the rule being disputed that a unit has disembarked [EDIT: The nice post above made a good point and helped clarify this point: no where does it say that the action of disembarking took place]. Trying to piece it together with other rules is assuming.

The rule allowing you to place them within one inch is the rule that tells you to place the passengers where the exploded vehicle was. If the vehicle was within one inch of another model and you place the passengers where the vehicle was then they are within one inch...

So hwo do you get the modells there without moving them? Do you have some sort of teleporter? An assault isn't a move (as defined in the movement phase), but it still follows all the same restrictions as the movement phase (except where there is express permission to break them) because... You are moving the models. Placing the models is still picking up and moving the models and unless somethig specifically overrides a particular rule all normal rules for moving a model count.

Or are you assuming you can place models on top of each other in this situation because it doesn;t specifically state you can't in that paragraph? You assume all normal rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

FlingitNow wrote:

The rule allowing you to place them within one inch is the rule that tells you to place the passengers where the exploded vehicle was. If the vehicle was within one inch of another model and you place the passengers where the vehicle was then they are within one inch...

So hwo do you get the modells there without moving them? Do you have some sort of teleporter? An assault isn't a move (as defined in the movement phase), but it still follows all the same restrictions as the movement phase (except where there is express permission to break them) because... You are moving the models. Placing the models is still picking up and moving the models and unless somethig specifically overrides a particular rule all normal rules for moving a model count.

Finally, someone making this argument. I love this argument, the one where someone claims that because they are physically moving models with their hands that it must count as movement despite having no rules backing. It always cracks me up.
PS: Assaulting uses the movement rules because it specifically says that it does, with a few detailed exceptions, not for the reasons you claim.

FlingitNow wrote:
Or are you assuming you can place models on top of each other in this situation because it doesn;t specifically state you can't in that paragraph? You assume all normal rules apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

The rules cover this quite clearly, if you read them. Models count as impassable terrain, and models 'may not be placed in impassable terrain'.

Models count as impassable terrain, and models 'may not be placed in impassable terrain'.

Do you have a page reference for that?

Still as DashofPepper illustrated it does say that models that are not longer in an exploded vehicle are disembarked.

It also doesn't specific say you can't declare yourself the winner at this point, or that you can't just remove all of his models. It say you can place your models in the footprint it doesn't specifically say what to do with miodels that don't fit in the footprint of the vehicle, even ignoring the 1" rule that might not be possible, but it syas you can place them in the footprint so you can place them on top of each other? What do you do by your theory you are at an impass, by your description the models cannot be destroyed as no provision is given for that unless you enforce the 1" rule...

FlingitNow wrote:

Models count as impassable terrain, and models 'may not be placed in impassable terrain'.

Do you have a page reference for that?

BRB page 14, bottom right under Impassable Terrain; "Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless..."

And as TW has mentioned elsewhre:
BRB page 66, first paragraph under 'Embarking and Disembarking' last sentence says; "However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

So ANY "Destroyed" results in a disembark, with the two different destroyed being done differently. And now we're back to cannot disembark within an inch........................

Time wizard



Thank you.

So there we have if we accept Gorkamorka view and you can't fit all the models in the footprint of the transport you can't place them on top of each other and there is no rule governing them being destroyed (as they all relate to disembarking which you claim the squad hasn't done) so the game just stops and we all go home?

FlingitNow wrote:Time wizard



Thank you.

So there we have if we accept Gorkamorka view and you can't fit all the models in the footprint of the transport you can't place them on top of each other and there is no rule governing them being destroyed (as they all relate to disembarking which you claim the squad hasn't done) so the game just stops and we all go home?

There are plenty of rules situations where the game hangs with no RAW resolution. That doesn't mean you can throw out the RAW in a RAW argument.

don_mondo wrote:
'Embarking and Disembarking' last sentence says; "However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."'

How does this apply? 'may embark and then be forced to disembark if there transport is destroyed' doesn't show that that the explosion rules use disembarking or force them to. It just states that being forced to disembark by a destroyed result is a valid action.
Wrecked is a valid destroyed result and can cause this rule to come into effect, so you can't even argue that the RAI is clear.

don_mondo wrote:
So ANY "Destroyed" results in a disembark

You're making inferences, like Dash's claim, that the rules don't specifically support.

BRB, pg67 wrote:
Destroyed - explodes!
The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP - hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting. The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test.

yeah,
BRB says put them where the vehicle was, this implys permission to place them any where within the boundaries of the exploded transport including within 1" of a enemy.

Panic...

Gorkamorka wrote:You're making inferences, like Dash's claim, that the rules don't specifically support.

Panic wrote: this implys permission to place them any where within the boundaries of the exploded transport including within 1" of a enemy.

Indeed. Implications abound.

The rule states to place them where the vehicle was destroyed. There is no implication there. It does not state that they must remain 1 inch away, but people are trying to prove otherwise.

kirsanth wrote:
Indeed. Implications abound.

There's no need to be pedantic just because you have no solid RAW supporting your argument.
Besides, my 'implication' was specifically allowed by the rule.

I am pedantic, regardless -- it has no bearing on this discussion.
Or rather, this discussion has no bearing on that part of my nature.


Editing to add:
I still have a hard time understand how it is not movement, but as I said I need to read more and do not have time for it at the moment.

don_mondo wrote:Don't need one. YOU need to prove that you are allowed to place them within an inch. There is only ONE general exception to that in the rulebook that I can think of, the assault move. Without something specifically granting you the ability to move (ie place) the model within an inch, you cannot do it.

Actually, there's more than one. Tank shock and Ramming also allows movement to inside an inch (BGB pg 68-69), and ramming even allows the model to stay within an inch should the ramming action not destroy the target vehicle. Moreover, the rule allows movement within an inch of models capable of assault (Walkers) that might result in the ramming model remaining within that inch but without initiating a close combat. Even better, the rules allow movement inside an inch without specifically and categorically listing it as an exception to what you're trying to suggest is an ironclad rule.

It's not proof either way for the question at hand, but this does take some of the wind out of the "there are no exceptions to the one inch rule" argument.

Fenris-77 wrote: Actually, there's more than one. Tank shock and Ramming also allows movement to inside an inch (BGB pg 68-69), and ramming even allows the model to stay within an inch should the ramming action not destroy the target vehicle. Moreover, the rule allows movement within an inch of models capable of assault (Walkers) that might result in the ramming model remaining within that inch but without initiating a close combat. Even better, the rules allow movement inside an inch without specifically and categorically listing it as an exception to what you're trying to suggest is an ironclad rule.

It's not proof either way for the question at hand, but this does take some of the wind out of the "there are no exceptions to the one inch rule" argument.

The tank shock rule allows the tank to make a special kind of attack. Think of it as an assault move by the tank, and assaulting models are allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model. But if the models the tank 'assaults' would end up under the tank, they are moved out of the way but must still leave 1" between themselves and the vehicle. The !' distance must still be maintained.

As for ramming, if the rammed vehicle is not removed, the ramming vehicle halts. And again ramming is a special kind of tank shock so it is a special type of assault a vehicle can make against another vehicle. This assault move is, again, an exception to the 1" rule because it is an attack that just happens to take place in the Movement phase.

If I missed the parts of the rule you were referring to, please point them out to me.

There are plenty of rules situations where the game hangs with no RAW resolution. That doesn't mean you can throw out the RAW in a RAW argument.

It is not a case of throwing out the RAW, you saying that because it says place them in the footprint of the tank and doesn;t mention the 1" rule (nor does it mention any other rule on model movement or placement) that we can throw out this rule and in doing so get to a point with no resolution. Where as taking the general rule that a specific rule overrides a non-specific rule we get the situation resolved and it all works in a sensible and normal manner and is consistant with the rest of the rules...

FlingitNow wrote:

The rule allowing you to place them within one inch is the rule that tells you to place the passengers where the exploded vehicle was. If the vehicle was within one inch of another model and you place the passengers where the vehicle was then they are within one inch...

So hwo do you get the modells there without moving them? Do you have some sort of teleporter? ...

Yes, in effect. The models were not on the board. They aren't moved onto the board. They magically appear on the board in the position of the transport they were riding in.

It isn't movement. It isn't assault. It isn't deepstriking. It's the same 'move' models get when you put them on the board during pre-game deployment.

FlingitNow wrote:

There are plenty of rules situations where the game hangs with no RAW resolution. That doesn't mean you can throw out the RAW in a RAW argument.

It is not a case of throwing out the RAW, you saying that because it says place them in the footprint of the tank and doesn;t mention the 1" rule (nor does it mention any other rule on model movement or placement) that we can throw out this rule and in doing so get to a point with no resolution. Where as taking the general rule that a specific rule overrides a non-specific rule we get the situation resolved and it all works in a sensible and normal manner and is consistant with the rest of the rules...

Noone is throwing out any rules. You are invoking rules that the rule does not invoke and claiming they have to be applied.
There is no general rule on placement being movement. Or at least the dozen people in both threads have failed to provide one, as have you.

Exactly.

So they are allowed to be placed in base with enemies? Assuming enemy models were in base contact with the vehicle, that is.

Interesting. I need time to read!

Noone is throwing out any rules. You are invoking rules that the rule does not invoke and claiming they have to be applied.
There is no general rule on placement being movement. Or at least the dozen people in both threads have failed to provide one, as have you.

However people have shown numerous examples in the rules where it refers to models disembarking from a Vehicle destroyed (not wrecked) result or models being disembarked after a vehicle explodes result...

Disembarking is covered, your definition however reaches no resolution.

FlingitNow wrote:

Noone is throwing out any rules. You are invoking rules that the rule does not invoke and claiming they have to be applied.
There is no general rule on placement being movement. Or at least the dozen people in both threads have failed to provide one, as have you.

However people have shown numerous examples in the rules where it refers to models disembarking from a Vehicle destroyed (not wrecked) result or models being disembarked after a vehicle explodes result...

Disembarking is covered, your definition however reaches no resolution.

As has been stated, none of those examples say that explodes uses dismbarking or force models from explodes to use disembarking, they just provide resolution for destroyed results that involve disembarking.

The fact that RAW can cause a rules hang is not an argument against the rules presented by the RAW. It is an argument for RAI or for using modified house rules.