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.

I was going to get involved. Then I made my Wisdom check, and apparently passed.

Ghaz wrote:No, it's not an 'accepted exception' because it does NOT say that it overrides any of the other rules. It's not an exception unless it says it specifically. In this case it does NOT say it specifically.

Accepted exception is:

John you can have the apple if you paint the house if you do not you cannot have the apple unless Jim has as an apple then you can have one or if you just want one.

Its understood that the exception or other condition of is that john paint the house ; but the accepted exception is that john can have the apple whenever he wants.


The exception in this case is " if enemy models, if impassable terrain".

Listen your analogies are making sense (to you) because you constructed them that way. Lets stick to the rules because that is the only part of the discussion that matters.

If you read the rules, your vehicle is impassible terrain until after you disembark, then it becomes difficult terrain. You cannot place your models on impassible terrain without a special rule in your profile providing an exception.

You are incorrect. Its fine if you want to house rule it, but it is not the way RAW tells you to play it.

Yup. Have to agree. Models cannot be placed on top of the vehicle before it becomes a wreck. Since units cannot disembark from a wreck, vehicles cannot become a wreck until any embarked unit attempts to disembark from it (successfully or not). Any unit which cannot disembark due to impassable terrain, and/or enemy models must emergency disembark. Any unit which cannot emergency disembark is destroyed. Models, both friend and foe are considered impassable terrain. Since the vehicle cannot become a wreck until the unit inside is disembarked or destroyed......


EDIT: I went the extra step and repeated myself preemptively.

Page 62 or the rule book
"WRECKS
Wrecked vehicles are left on the table and effectively
become a piece of terrain, counting as both difficult
and dangerous terrain, and providing cover."

So if you do get to emergency disembark onto the wrecked vehicle then you should also make a dangerous terrain test.

And just wanted to mention as far as RAI goes: there are several places where the BRB mentions that models cannot be on top of other models. Granted, these are rules such as pg 52 for jump infantry or pg 71 for skimmers because they probably thought there might be some possible confusion on whether or not flying models could indeed be on top of other models.
So by RAI it is quite obvious that they intend to NOT allow models to be on top of other models.

Sliggoth

So Hollisman, would you then be okay with me deploying my models on top of my vehicles and then driving them around the battlefield in an unassaultable position?


I completely, 100% disagree with your assessment and others have already proved you wrong. Models are considered impassable terrain and you cannot place other models on top of them.

Hollismason wrote:It doesn't state in the rules models may occupy the same space.

What it states is

Models, may not move into or through a space occupied by another model ( respresented by its base or by its hull).

This is what prevents models from occupying the same space.

I am not. I am placing it on top of the hull it is not moving through or moving into the vehicle at all.

Would you say that it is ok to place terminators on top of a land raider during the movement phase so that they don't have to move around it?

That's exactly the same thing. The land raider does not become terrain until after the models are deployed, as specifically stated by the rules.

The player in situation 1 is incorrect. His squad is destroyed.

This is precisely why you don't let people totally surround your occupied vehicles if you can possibly help it.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:The player in situation 1 is incorrect. His squad is destroyed.

This is precisely why you don't let people totally surround your occupied vehicles if you can possibly help it.

DoW

Of course, since bases are slightly less than 1" wide, you can actually emergency disembark on the other side of most models, if their assault move has been completed correct.y.

Where's Gwar!?

Personally, I don't agree with the topic creater but was wondering what Gwar! might have to provide to this thread. It could be hella amusing.

Hollismason wrote:

Ghaz wrote:No, it's not an 'accepted exception' because it does NOT say that it overrides any of the other rules. It's not an exception unless it says it specifically. In this case it does NOT say it specifically.

Accepted exception is:

John you can have the apple if you paint the house if you do not you cannot have the apple unless Jim has as an apple then you can have one or if you just want one.

Its understood that the exception or other condition of is that john paint the house ; but the accepted exception is that john can have the apple whenever he wants.


The exception in this case is " if enemy models, if impassable terrain".

Again, you have no 'accepted exception' to anything other than not being forced to place the models within 2" of the access points. It does not say "... anywhere within 2" of the hull, disregarding any other rules for model placement..." If it does not say that you can ignore those rules (and it does not) then they are in full force.

djphranq wrote:Where's Gwar!?

Personally, I don't agree with the topic creater but was wondering what Gwar! might have to provide to this thread. It could be hella amusing.

I believe this thread has reached its threshold for blunt know-it-alls. The OP's issue has been repeatedly dismantled with RAW and basic common sense, so we don't any more ego inflating people's post count. Best hope this one passes under radar.

synchronicity wrote:

djphranq wrote:Where's Gwar!?

Personally, I don't agree with the topic creater but was wondering what Gwar! might have to provide to this thread. It could be hella amusing.

I believe this thread has reached its threshold for blunt know-it-alls. The OP's issue has been repeatedly dismantled with RAW and basic common sense, so we don't any more ego inflating people's post count. Best hope this one passes under radar.

Sometimes Gwar! provides some interesting end-all arguments type stuff. It would be interesting to see what he has to say.

This is the sort of 'arguments' people likely made when they were presented proof that the world was not flat, and that the sun did not revolve around us.

Hollis- you cant put figs on top of you vehicles during regular movement. So referring to the rules for regular movement doesnt support your claims.

The wrecked vehicle does not be come terrain until AFTER it determined the models can disembark or not-and then are placed within 2" of the hatches, OR hull if thats not possible. Then the vehicle ceases to be a model, and becomes terrain.

Disembarking, emergency or otherwise does not alter the sequence of the rules at all.

Just because you want to be right, and keep debating a point, doesnt make it so.

Maybe spending less time on this, and more time on tactics to avoid this situation would be far more productive?

Mistress of minis wrote:

Maybe spending less time on this, and more time on tactics to avoid this situation would be far more productive?

Oh schnaps! Thats hella better than whatever Gwar! might put on.

Re: models on models... wouldn't that be like holding a landspeeder above terrain but not actually putting it down so you don't have to take some dangerous terrain test claiming it didn't 'land'?

yakface wrote:
So Hollisman, would you then be okay with me deploying my models on top of my vehicles and then driving them around the battlefield in an unassaultable position?


I completely, 100% disagree with your assessment and others have already proved you wrong. Models are considered impassable terrain and you cannot place other models on top of them.

Moving through and into are completely different than being placed within. There is no movement involved. It a wall is 1 inch away from a access point you can disembark within 2inches on the other side of the wall.


You have to move models into or through that part of a model in order to ge them there it is not the same as being placed with in.


So no I would not, that said if I surrounded your rhino or valkyrie and you placed as many models a you could on top to avoid being destroyed no I wouldnt have a problem with it as that is how the rules are written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:This is the sort of 'arguments' people likely made when they were presented proof that the world was not flat, and that the sun did not revolve around us.

Hollis- you cant put figs on top of you vehicles during regular movement. So referring to the rules for regular movement doesnt support your claims.

The wrecked vehicle does not be come terrain until AFTER it determined the models can disembark or not-and then are placed within 2" of the hatches, OR hull if thats not possible. Then the vehicle ceases to be a model, and becomes terrain.

Disembarking, emergency or otherwise does not alter the sequence of the rules at all.

Just because you want to be right, and keep debating a point, doesnt make it so.

Maybe spending less time on this, and more time on tactics to avoid this situation would be far more productive?

First there is not sequence of rules other than turns, turns do not have subsections except for the beginning and end. What happens in between follows that turns rules.

Rules are prohibitive and permissive in nature.

Disembarkation and Embarkation do not follow the movement rules at all.

If you backed a Rhino up to a wall and sat it there you most certainly could deploy a squad on the other side of the wall with no tests being taken, like wise you do not use movement to embark or disembark a rhino.

You could have a wall in front of all of the access points and embark as it has no rules other than impassable terrain rules etc enemy models.


Again the argument that Disembarkation and Embarkation follow the movement rules is false it is not movement it is additional special movement in addition to your normal movement.


There are several scenarios as well as situations that can be used to demonstrate this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

Ghaz wrote:No, it's not an 'accepted exception' because it does NOT say that it overrides any of the other rules. It's not an exception unless it says it specifically. In this case it does NOT say it specifically.

Accepted exception is:

John you can have the apple if you paint the house if you do not you cannot have the apple unless Jim has as an apple then you can have one or if you just want one.

Its understood that the exception or other condition of is that john paint the house ; but the accepted exception is that john can have the apple whenever he wants.


The exception in this case is " if enemy models, if impassable terrain".

Again, you have no 'accepted exception' to anything other than not being forced to place the models within 2" of the access points. It does not say "... anywhere within 2" of the hull, disregarding any other rules for model placement..." If it does not say that you can ignore those rules (and it does not) then they are in full force.

First there is not underlying english grammer rule called accepted exception or otherwise. Its a phrase I specifically created to explain basic understanding of english grammer and comprehension.

The statement indicates that john can have the apple regardless.

If I say" You may place that apple anywhere within range of the table , you could put it under the table set it on top of the table, put it next to the table , anywhere with in the table ." Its a implied nonrestriction.


If it wanted you to not then it would be written " Placed anywhere within EXCEPT ".

Hollismason wrote:Moving through and into are completely different than being placed within. There is no movement involved. It a wall is 1 inch away from a access point you can disembark within 2inches on the other side of the wall.


You have to move models into or through that part of a model in order to ge them there it is not the same as being placed with in.


So no I would not, that said if I surrounded your rhino or valkyrie and you placed as many models a you could on top to avoid being destroyed no I wouldn't have a problem with it as that is how the rules are written.

P.14 "Models may not be placed in impassible terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception( like being able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it."

p.67 "Destroyed - wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed. After this the vehicle is a wreck." Notice the timing announced, the vehicle is still a vehicle until after the passengers are disembarked.

p.67 "When the unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle's access points, and within unit coherency. Models cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy. If any models cannot disembark because of enemies or because they would end up in impassible terrain, the unit can perform an 'emergency disembarkation' - the models are deployed anywhere within 2" of the vehicle's hull, but the unit can't do anything else for the rest of the turn. If even this disembarkation is impossible, they can't disembark."

You can't place models in impassible terrain.

For the record, Terminators can be pinned. I saw someone say they can't.....


As for this whole debate....the rules also don't say I can't take a hammer and smash your landraider into rubble to make actual terrain. So can I? That would end the arguement really quick.

Which is what I would do if someone tried to pull this on me.

I think the term for this would be 'Zealot'.

Ol Hollis wants to believe that this argument is 'right', 'legal' per the rules, 'justifiable' and 'fair'. He seems intent on saying alot of nothing to 'validate' his point.

Im all for thinking outside of the box. But Hollis, really, just because you want something to be so- doesnt mean it is. If you want to keep arguing its all good, but you're just making yourself look like you have a bigger reading comprehension deficit.

Your 'counter points' come out sounding like a 'because I said so' retort. If you want to make a house rule so your guys can dance on top of tanks go for it. But the rest of the 40k community isnt buying it just because you say so.

Hollismason wrote:
If I say" You may place that apple anywhere within range of the table , you could put it under the table set it on top of the table, put it next to the table , anywhere with in the table ." Its a implied nonrestriction.

There is nothing implied in that sentence at all. It is a series of stated 'non-restrictions'.

If you wanted a direct comparison to the rules it would be this (Rules equivalents are in red):

When moving an Apple (model) you cannot place it on or in a table (Impassable Terrain). You may place it on or in a counter (difficult terrain), although if the counter has mold (dangerous terrain) on it, the apple may suffer rotting (a wound). Any lunchbox (vehicle), or apple (model) is considered to also be a table (Impassable Terrain). An Apple (model) may be considered to be carried inside a lunchbox (vehicle) if you can place it within 2" of the edge of the lunchbox (vehicle). When forced to take an apple(model) out of a lunchbox (vehicle) you must place it within 2" of the edge of the lunchbox (vehicle). After you place the apple (model), the lunchbox (vehicle) is no longer considered a table (impassable terrain), instead it is now considered a counter (difficult terrain) with mold (dangerous terrain) on it.

The rules are quite specific about stating that vehicles are models, models are impassable terrain, and exactly when vehicles stop being models and become terrain.

First there is not sequence of rules other than turns, turns do not have subsections except for the beginning and end. What happens in between follows that turns rules.

Now you're just spouting drivel. The rules are not more or less than a Series of sequences of rules.

Lol i can't believe there is two pages to this thread. Wouldn't a simple "If your group plays this way so be it, but that isn't how the rules are written or interpreted" have been enough.

And if you really wanted to make an argument supporting it, you could try "I don't know about you but if i know someone is destroying the vehicle i'm in, i am taking my sweet time getting out of it and staying behind or in it as much as possible to not be shot".

Iron Father Mac wrote:
And if you really wanted to make an argument supporting it, you could try "I don't know about you but if i know someone is destroying the vehicle i'm in, i am taking my sweet time getting out of it and staying behind or in it as much as possible to not be shot".

Read here to find out why this argument doesn't work:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

Lordhat wrote:Read here to find out why this argument doesn't work:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

lol i didn't mean it to be logical or good argument, but it's one of the only ones i hadn't seen him use and it would have made more sense then because i don't read it that way.

LOL He doesn't need any help mis-reading the rules.

The rules are permissive in what they tell you what you can do, the rules do not give you permission to smash an opponents models with a hammer.


Its a strawman argument.


Now you keep stating that models can not be placed with in impassable terrain and that models count as impassable terrain.


This actually isn't true, there are several vehicle and movement types that can cause movement through impassable terrain as well as through models.


Again, this is a straw man argument as Disembarkation and EMbarkation are not movement.

They are special subsect of the vehicle rules and not delegated by movement rules.

They have their own specific rules but do not discount movement through terrain or movement through models or beyond models.


If they were movement rules you could not place models beyond enemy models near access points which you can.

The sequence of events happens in a order but it does not happen in a set checking order.

There is no checkbox to see i the model is allowed to be placed within anywhere.

The model is placed you take a test the model becomes a wreck and now difficult and dangerous terrain.

Now if it remained impassable terrain you would have stuck your models in a area that they can never move from but you haven't.

Hollismason wrote:Again, this is a straw man argument as Disembarkation and EMbarkation are not movement.

BRB page 66, "Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase..." ergo, they are movement.

Hollismason wrote:They are special subsect of the vehicle rules and not delegated by movement rules.

Incorrect, since they must occur in the Movement phase, they must follow all of the movement rules, along with any special rules. "A model cannot move into or throught the space occupied by another model..." except jump infantry, jetbikes and skimmers which can move over enemy or friendly models.

Hollismason wrote:They have their own specific rules but do not discount movement through terrain or movement through models or beyond models.

You just said it. They do not discount ("To leave out of account as being untrustworthy or exaggerated; disregard: discount a rumor.") movement, as in, you must still follow the rules for movement.

Hollismason wrote:If they were movement rules you could not place models beyond enemy models near access points which you can.

No, you cannot. That would require you to move over another model, which infantry units cannot do.

Hollismason wrote:The sequence of events happens in a order but it does not happen in a set checking order.

Sure it does. Look at Necrom WBB. That check is made at the start of a turn, before rolling for reserves which occurs at the beginning of the Movement phase. That's why Necrons in reserve can't help out with WBB rolls. They aren't in play yet.
I doubt that anything anyone says at this point will change your opinion. You are free to play emergency disembarkation anyway you choose, as long as you have the approval of your opponent.
"So long as both players agree, you can treat them (the rules) as sacrosanct or mere guidelines..." and that statement is within the rules.
Enjoy.
Time Wizard

Well I've quoted you the relevant rules, its up to you how you want to play. But the community seems to agree that you are wrong.

time wizard wrote:

Hollismason wrote:Again, this is a straw man argument as Disembarkation and EMbarkation are not movement.

BRB page 66, "Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase..." ergo, they are movement.

Hollismason wrote:They are special subsect of the vehicle rules and not delegated by movement rules.

Incorrect, since they must occur in the Movement phase, they must follow all of the movement rules, along with any special rules. "A model cannot move into or throught the space occupied by another model..." except jump infantry, jetbikes and skimmers which can move over enemy or friendly models.

Hollismason wrote:They have their own specific rules but do not discount movement through terrain or movement through models or beyond models.

You just said it. They do not discount ("To leave out of account as being untrustworthy or exaggerated; disregard: discount a rumor.") movement, as in, you must still follow the rules for movement.

Hollismason wrote:If they were movement rules you could not place models beyond enemy models near access points which you can.

No, you cannot. That would require you to move over another model, which infantry units cannot do.

Hollismason wrote:The sequence of events happens in a order but it does not happen in a set checking order.

Sure it does. Look at Necrom WBB. That check is made at the start of a turn, before rolling for reserves which occurs at the beginning of the Movement phase. That's why Necrons in reserve can't help out with WBB rolls. They aren't in play yet.
I doubt that anything anyone says at this point will change your opinion. You are free to play emergency disembarkation anyway you choose, as long as you have the approval of your opponent.
"So long as both players agree, you can treat them (the rules) as sacrosanct or mere guidelines..." and that statement is within the rules.
Enjoy.
Time Wizard

Your first statement is false because it makes the assumption that all things in the movement phase are movement and follow the rules of movement, this is a basic logic fallacy as to say that is to say that anything that occurs in the movement phase of the game is movement, so psychic powers etc.. are movement no they are not.


Your second statement is incorrect as well, models do not follow a path when disembarking from vehicles. They are placed, not moved or dragged along a set line. You most certainly can place models on the other side of enemy models as long as they are beyond the 1inch and within the 2inch range. You may also place models in difficult terrain or on the other side of difficult terrain or in a tree or on a roof or where ever as long as it is with 2 inches of the access point.


Again, being placed within and being moved within are two different statements.

Disembarkation and Embarkation are not movement do not follow the movement rules or rules for difficult terrain.

It does not matter if it follows movement rules or not. The rules state that models may not be "placed on" impassible terrain. It does not specify placed on by way of movement. How they get there is irrelevent, they can't be placed on impassible terrain.