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 disagree.

don_mondo wrote:I disagree.

Well, you are wrong unless you can show otherwise.
"It doesn't say I can't" is a completely valid argument when you have general permission to do something.

As soon as it is shown that this is not moving, I will be a lot closer to agreement.

The fact that there is a general restriction is not over-ridden by a general statement lacking a provision to override.

For example, are you saying that coherency/dangerous terrain also does not matter?

Actually, this brings an odd issue with a skimmer transport and impassable terrain too. . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:"It doesn't say I can't" is a completely valid argument when you have general permission to do something.

Unless having a model be placed in a different location is moving that model, then the permission was denied.

kirsanth wrote:As soon as it is shown that this is not moving, I will be a lot closer to agreement.

The fact that there is a general restriction is not over-ridden by a general statement lacking a provision to override.

For example, are you saying that coherency/dangerous terrain also does not matter?

Actually, this brings an odd issue with a skimmer transport and impassable terrain too. . .

I dont have my rulebook on me, but does it not say that the unit must be in coherency at the end of the movement phase...and if theyre not, they must try to move into coherency during their next movement phase?

If that's the case, I would say no. Does it matter? No because the player would hinder himself and it would require only a couple of units to even be possible.

When movement is completed, not the movement (or even its movement) phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The impassable terrain bit for skimmer transports is funnier, IMO. No more possible, mind you, but funny nontheless.

kirsanth wrote:As soon as it is shown that this is not moving, I will be a lot closer to agreement.

The fact that there is a general restriction is not over-ridden by a general statement lacking a provision to override.

For example, are you saying that coherency/dangerous terrain also does not matter?

Actually, this brings an odd issue with a skimmer transport and impassable terrain too. . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:"It doesn't say I can't" is a completely valid argument when you have general permission to do something.

Unless having a model be placed in a different location is moving that model, then the permission was denied.

That's the point. Unless you can find a general rule that states that placing is movement, then movement restrictions don't apply to placing and I can place the models in the specified area as I wish. We don't have to show that it is not moving, you have to show that it is.

Impassable terrain specifies that models cannot be placed within it, while dangerous terrain specifies models that 'entered, left, or moved through... during it's move'.

Interesting discussion.

Gorkamorka wrote:1. Getting out of a vehicle is disembarking, regardless of how you get out of the vehicle.
This is not supported by a rules quote, unless he gives one. I don't think the rules support this assertion at all, with a quick check.

This may still be provable.

Gorkamorka wrote: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...
This has nothing to do with the RAW working of the explodes result. There are no disembarked passengers from the explodes result wording.

Don't have my rulebook here at work, but does the data above exist in the rules for shooting at at a transport and assaulting the passengers? If that "now disembarked passengers" text is there, and if that "(either result)" text is there, that may be our explicit textual confirmation.

I just love these threads.

1. There needs to be a specific rule called Disembarkation.
2. It needs to prevent models being placed within 1 inch of an enemy.
3. It needs to be shown that the process by which passenger models are put on the table in place of the blown up vehicle model is governed by the Disembarkation rule.

Otherwise the placement is governed by the rule about placing passenger models from a blown up transport, which says they are placed within the outline of the ex-vehicle and says nothing about having to place them 1 inch away from enemies.

Mannahnin wrote:Interesting discussion.

Gorkamorka wrote:1. Getting out of a vehicle is disembarking, regardless of how you get out of the vehicle.
This is not supported by a rules quote, unless he gives one. I don't think the rules support this assertion at all, with a quick check.

This may still be provable.

Gorkamorka wrote: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...
This has nothing to do with the RAW working of the explodes result. There are no disembarked passengers from the explodes result wording.

Don't have my rulebook here at work, but does the data above exist in the rules for shooting at at a transport and assaulting the passengers? If that "now disembarked passengers" text is there, and if that "(either result)" text is there, that may be our explicit textual confirmation.

Why yes, it is:
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers,

So yeah, that's a second rules quote that says it's disembarking when the vehicle is destroyed, regardless of type of destroyed.

don_mondo wrote:
Why yes, it is:
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers,

So yeah, that's a second rules quote that says it's disembarking when the vehicle is destroyed, regardless of type of destroyed.
...
Doesn't matter if you're applying the disembarkation mechanics or not. The passengers are considered to have disembarked, that means the restrictions on disembarking are in effect and may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model.

Can we make repeating arguments in multiple threads that are provable as not supported by RAW an offense or something?
Read the mod post directly above yours. Prove the third of those statements concretely and specifically, or the language of the explodes result stands.
Don't pretend a weak and nonspecific implication from a separate rule is grounds to change RAW elsewhere. That is not how RAW or YMDC works.

So ask a mod to lock one of the threads.....

To repeat, the passengers are considered to be disembarked. How they got there, the mechanics of the move or placement, is irrelevant, they are a disembarked unit. Ergo, any and all restrictions that go with disembarking, such as may not be placed within an inch of enemy models, are in effect.

Bottom line, in two different places, the main rules refer to getting out of a destroyed vehicle as disembarkation. Good enough for me.

don_mondo wrote:So ask a mod to lock one of the threads.....

To repeat, the passengers are considered to be disembarked. How they got there, the mechanics of the move or placement, is irrelevant, they are a disembarked unit. Ergo, any and all restrictions that go with disembarking, such as may not be placed within an inch of enemy models, are in effect.

...No. That is not what the rule says, and not how the rules work.
You are quite simply fabricating these claims.

Uh huh, so they're a disembarked unit but they didn't disembark............?? Anyone see a problem with that statement other than me?

Gorkamorka wrote:

don_mondo wrote:So ask a mod to lock one of the threads.....

To repeat, the passengers are considered to be disembarked. How they got there, the mechanics of the move or placement, is irrelevant, they are a disembarked unit. Ergo, any and all restrictions that go with disembarking, such as may not be placed within an inch of enemy models, are in effect.

...No. That is not what the rule says, and not how the rules work.

yYou are correct sir.

And yes, repeating the same answers in two seperate threads is annoying.

don_mondo wrote:Uh huh, so they're a disembarked unit but they didn't disembark............?? Anyone see a problem with that statement other than me?

So if a unit started outside its transport, it must have disembarked because it is a disembarked unit?

don_mondo wrote:Uh huh, so they're a disembarked unit but they didn't disembark............?? Anyone see a problem with that statement other than me?

I'm with ya.

Also, in my experience, rhino wall (and generally vehicle transport) shenanigans in the current rules are fairly ridiculous, the less advantageous interpretation of these rules would be for the destruction of models placed in 1 inch.

Completely surrounding a transport like that is so rare and hard to do it seems we are really splitting hairs here anyway.

Furthermore consider the game situation, a completely surrounded transport is destroyed with an explosion catastrophic enough to vaporize the whole transport, and the survivors are unscathed in the crater it leaves?

It's reasonable to destroy the models that can not disembark within an inch of an enemy for fair game play IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Uh huh, so they're a disembarked unit but they didn't disembark............?? Anyone see a problem with that statement other than me?

So if a unit started outside its transport, it must have disembarked because it is a disembarked unit?

No, but if unit started in it's transport and then ended up on the board it disembarked.

thebetter1 wrote:

So if a unit started outside its transport, it must have disembarked because it is a disembarked unit?

No, because it was never embarked in the first place. In order to disembark, one must first embark.

However, don_mondo is entirely right, semantically speaking. If a unit is at one point embarked, and at a later point is not embarked, it has by definition disembarked.

The opposing argument seems to be that a unit might have "disembarked" without ever Disembarking. The first is word which means "to cease to be embarked", the second is a rule which (Gorkamorka asserts) requires you to leave a vehicle in a specific fashion.

Gorkamorka wrote:
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...
This has nothing to do with the RAW working of the explodes result. There are no disembarked passengers from the explodes result wording.

I'm honestly curious (no sarcasm here, as my group discussed this Adepticon FAQ ruling as well), does your group allow this to happen then?

Squad of Plague Marines advances within an inch of a rhino. Shoots a melta, gets an explode result.
Loyalist player places his marines where the rhino used to be.
Plague Marine player rolls difficult terrain (gets a 6, yeah for the Dark Gods) and assaults the Loyalist marines.


Why or why not?

BeRzErKeR wrote:
However, don_mondo is entirely right, semantically speaking. If a unit is at one point embarked, and at a later point is not embarked, it has by definition disembarked.

Grammatically sure, but that little slice of rhetoric doesnt mean that the rule mechanics laid out for in the BGB were used. In fact, as I've pointed out several times, those mechanics cannot be used. So if you can't use the mechanic, how are you comfortable applying the restrictions that apply to that mechanic?

BeRzErKeR wrote:
The opposing argument seems to be that a unit might have "disembarked" without ever Disembarking. The first is word which means "to cease to be embarked", the second is a rule which (Gorkamorka asserts) requires you to leave a vehicle in a specific fashion.

What page 67 actually says is "the now disembarked passengers". That's a perfectly serviceable word to describe being suddenly outside a vehicle you were just in, but the use of the word isn't proof of rules use. You're right to say that the disembarking rules require the unit to leave a vehicle in a particular fashion though - the problem is that the explodes! result takes that vehicle off the board before anything happens with the unit inside (which is the opposite of wrecked). You simply cannot take the order of events described in explodes! and fit the disembarking mechanic over-top. You can go through the disembarking rules one statement at a time, and not a single one of those statements matches with anything that happens when a vehicle explodes, except in the most general way, which is to say that the unit inside ends up outside. That general correspondance does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean the actual disembark rules are used though.

There's an issue here with the active & passive use of the verb "to disembark".

There's a difference in meaning between "I disembark from the vehicle" and "The vehicle I was embarked upon ceased to exist; thus, since I am no longer in an embarked state, I am now in a disembarked state."

If the vehicle you are in ceases to exist, you can be in a disembarked state, without having actually ever disembarked. It's not like you got out of the door...

BeRzErKeR wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

So if a unit started outside its transport, it must have disembarked because it is a disembarked unit?

However, don_mondo is entirely right, semantically speaking. If a unit is at one point embarked, and at a later point is not embarked, it has by definition disembarked.

So now you're saying that using Gate of Infinity from a transport is disembarking?

BeRzErKeR wrote:However, don_mondo is entirely right, semantically speaking. If a unit is at one point embarked, and at a later point is not embarked, it has by definition disembarked.

This is a wonderful example of the problems caused by GW's lack of specific terminology in their rules.

The unit has certainly disembarked (as in: has exited the vehicle)
But it hasn't Disembarked (as in: has exited the vehicle through the specific mechanics laid out in the rules for Disembarking)

Unfortunately, GW doesn't make that sort of distinction in the rules. It's left up to players to determine from context where a given term is referring to a rules mechanic or to real-world fluff.

Gorkamorka wrote: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...
This has nothing to do with the RAW working of the explodes result. There are no disembarked passengers from the explodes result wording.

Don't have my rulebook here at work, but does the data above exist in the rules for shooting at at a transport and assaulting the passengers? If that "now disembarked passengers" text is there, and if that "(either result)" text is there, that may be our explicit textual confirmation.

thebetter1 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

So if a unit started outside its transport, it must have disembarked because it is a disembarked unit?

However, don_mondo is entirely right, semantically speaking. If a unit is at one point embarked, and at a later point is not embarked, it has by definition disembarked.

So now you're saying that using Gate of Infinity from a transport is disembarking?

Yes. You've left the vehicle, therefore you have disembarked. Note, however, that GoI also references other rules (namely the Deep Strike rules), and as such there are additional restrictions you must follow.

And....there is one more problem to consider. Pg 67 does indicate that the passengers of either destroyed result have disembarked.

However, in 40k specific rules > general rules. So, in this case we have a specific rule (how to place models when their transport is destroyed) coming up against a general rule (models that disembark may not move to within 1" of an opposing model).

The rule on pg 67 for destroyed - explodes is the more specific rule (applying to the one special case) and it gives a very specific location for the embarked models. It gives one and only one restriction for placing these models: where the vehicle used to be. That this rule for placement is less restrictive in one way (it drops the 1" rule for disembarking) is interesting, but its also very telling.

If the regular disembarkation rules were to apply, then the wording in the previous paragraph on Destroyed - wrecked could have been used. The very change in the wording from destroyed - wrecked to the wording in destroyed - explodes tells us that the two cases are different.

If the RAW in destroyed - explodes said " The surviving passengers must immediately disembark where the vehicle used to be" then they would have to follow the disembarking rules. GW for some reason made a distinction here, instead using the wording "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be". Giving us new, more specific directions on where the models go.

Its quite possible that RAI they meant for the disembarking rules to apply; thats not what they said under RAW tho.

There are other times that specific rules allow a model to come within 1" of an opponent's models, other specific rules that over ride the general 1" rule. This is just one more such case.



Sliggoth

Yad wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote: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...
This has nothing to do with the RAW working of the explodes result. There are no disembarked passengers from the explodes result wording.

Don't have my rulebook here at work, but does the data above exist in the rules for shooting at at a transport and assaulting the passengers? If that "now disembarked passengers" text is there, and if that "(either result)" text is there, that may be our explicit textual confirmation.

When I first read your post I was real close to accepting your point. But the crux of your assertion here is the 'now disembarked passengers' text. The problem is that you still can't link it to the vehicle explodes rule. The Vehicle Explodes rule does not invoke the disembark mechanic.

-Yad

But....it doesnt matter whether or not the passengers on a destroyed - explodes transport have disembarked or not. We are told in destroyed - explodes exactly how the passengers are placed, this is the case of a more specific rule being followed rather than a general rule.

In general, models cannot move closer than 1" from an opponents models. But there are more specific rules that do indeed allow models to move closer than that (ie assault, tank shocks).

If models were within 1" of the vehicle then it is most likely that those models were in an assault on that vehicle. A perfectly reasonable RAI reading would be to then place any passengers into that same assault area. Remember, models in an assault arent actually locked into one static location, the idea is that melee is a swirling event that takes in all models in that general area.

RAI is unclear. RAW is a specific rule for placement of the passengers where the vehicle used to be ... no restrictions such as 1" from models or leniency such as within 2" of the footprint.



Sliggoth

Placing the models in the terrain does not override the resitrction on moving within 1" - it states you must place it but gives no allowance for overriding the other movemebt rules.

So as explosions do cover disembarking regardless of result, you may not move within 1" and therefore may not place within 1"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Placing the models in the terrain does not override the resitrction on moving within 1" - it states you must place it but gives no allowance for overriding the other movemebt rules.

So as explosions do cover disembarking regardless of result, you may not move within 1" and therefore may not place within 1"

Please, read the several pages of arguments in both threads.

Placing the models is not defined as movement. You are wrong by RAW.

So, to summarise: The rules are a little vague on whether or not leaving a vehicle through having it explode should be treated as disembarking or not. Sort it out with your opponent.