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.

apollochaos wrote:
Unfortunately, my club plays it as such: if a transport that has been destroyed, as in wrecked, and there's no room for the models inside to disembark anywhere - they simply appear on top of it. While I don't agree completely with it on a personal level, (though it makes some sense)in the spirit of fun and sportsmanship, I say go ahead. It's not a house rule here, that's exactly how they feel the rule is meant to be - they don't take the literal terms of the codex, i.e. disembark and then it's a wreck, but actually, they disembark from the tank which is, after having been destroyed, now a wreck.

That is a house rule. It's the definition of a house rule.
You are breaking from the instructions in the BRB for the situation, and placing the units on the wreck changes the order the events clearly occur in in the rules.

I apologise, I quoted the wrong post. I was referring to the issue of the rule "cannot do anything for the rest of the turn." In the case of Death or GLory this rule is necessary, since it prevents the units inside from acting if the tank is destroyed.

Sorry again.

Edit: no this was the right post, but I didn't cut off the last sentence like I should have. oops.

nintendoeats wrote:I apologise, I quoted the wrong post. I was referring to the issue of the rule "cannot do anything for the rest of the turn." In the case of Death or GLory this rule is necessary, since it prevents the units inside from acting if the tank is destroyed.

Sorry again.

Edit: no this was the right post, but I didn't cut off the last sentence like I should have. oops.

Fair enough, I can see it now.

No problem, my bad.

Unfortunately, my club plays it as such: if a transport that has been destroyed, as in wrecked, and there's no room for the models inside to disembark anywhere - they simply appear on top of it. While I don't agree completely with it on a personal level, (though it makes some sense)in the spirit of fun and sportsmanship, I say go ahead. It's not a house rule here, that's exactly how they feel the rule is meant to be - they don't take the literal terms of the codex, i.e. disembark and then it's a wreck, but actually, they disembark from the tank which is, after having been destroyed, now a wreck.

This is such a stretch to RaI this would have to be classified as a houserule. They are deliberately changing the course of events for their interpretation. While this maybe RaI there is no obvious argument to support that conclusion so this is indeed a house rule.

FlingitNow wrote:

Unfortunately, my club plays it as such: if a transport that has been destroyed, as in wrecked, and there's no room for the models inside to disembark anywhere - they simply appear on top of it. While I don't agree completely with it on a personal level, (though it makes some sense)in the spirit of fun and sportsmanship, I say go ahead. It's not a house rule here, that's exactly how they feel the rule is meant to be - they don't take the literal terms of the codex, i.e. disembark and then it's a wreck, but actually, they disembark from the tank which is, after having been destroyed, now a wreck.

This is such a stretch to RaI this would have to be classified as a houserule. They are deliberately changing the course of events for their interpretation. While this maybe RaI there is no obvious argument to support that conclusion so this is indeed a house rule.

The rule is so incredibly clearly written that I don't feel that there could possibly be a "RAI" that is different from what's written in the book.

The rule is so incredibly clearly written that I don't feel that there could possibly be a "RAI" that is different from what's written in the book.

I agree, obviously we could be wrong (who'd have guessed that Counter attack triggered Furious Charge), but there seems very little doubt at the moment and RaW is specific and makes sense so why change it?

FlingitNow wrote:

The rule is so incredibly clearly written that I don't feel that there could possibly be a "RAI" that is different from what's written in the book.

I agree, obviously we could be wrong (who'd have guessed that Counter attack triggered Furious Charge), but there seems very little doubt at the moment and RaW is specific and makes sense so why change it?

Check the SW FAQ again, they changed it!

FlingitNow wrote:

The rule is so incredibly clearly written that I don't feel that there could possibly be a "RAI" that is different from what's written in the book.

I agree, obviously we could be wrong (who'd have guessed that Counter attack triggered Furious Charge), but there seems very little doubt at the moment and RaW is specific and makes sense so why change it?

I'm sorry, what possible reason could you have to think that Counter attack triggers furious charge? I do not see it in any GW FAQ, nor the INAT FAQ.

Please explain your crazy ideas at once!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

willydstyle wrote:Check the SW FAQ again, they changed it!

Yup. Once again, Gwar! was right all along. Who'dathunkit!

Check the SW FAQ again, they changed it!

Really again? It makes more sense that way.

Gwar! wrote:

apollochaos wrote:An interesting scenario ocurred at a test game yesterday- I completely covered a rhino with 7 jetbikes - not just the hatches, but the entire circumference of the model.

My plan was simply to stun it, to prevent movement, so I could disable it for a turn, and not have to worry about the occupants. My question is this: if I destroyed the vehicle, or exploded it - what would happen to the models inside,, other than pinning test and str 4 hit where applicable?

This is covered on page 67, specifically Emergency Disembarking and the "Destroyed - Wrecked" result.

Explodes is a bit trickier however, as it doesn't cover what happens if there is enough room.

On explodes, after calculating the Str 4 hits, "The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a pinning test." I know you know the rule but I am trying to be clear. For example: Using the 3" x 5.75" rectangle that used to be the Rhino has no enemy models within 1" of it's perimeter so every surviving passenger that fits in that rectangle (1 inch base gives 3 across and 5 deep) is bunched in the smoking crater. Even if the vehicle exploded in CC you can still get all the survivors that fit within the original vehicles perimeter.

And just because I was looking up the Jetbikes: Jet Bikes cannot end there move over the vehicle (p. 53 ...exceptions: Jetbikes may not end their move over other models...") so there is no problem with fitting the survivors in the terrain (formerly known as Rhino) even if Jetbikes are the models blocking the access points.

Edited because it used to be wrong. Thanks. Gorkamorka

I don't think he was talking about the explodes result - but the 'wreckjed result', but cheers anyway

garigon wrote:I don't think he was talking about the explodes result - but the 'wreckjed result', but cheers anyway

Well I am sure Gwar knows…but there is no wiggle room in the OPs post with a Wrecked result.

Wrecked exactly specifies the result if a unit cannot disembark, and further, also on page 67 under Disembarking, it specifies what must be done to perform an 'emergency disembarkation' – the models are placed anywhere within 2" of the vehicle's hull. In the OPs example the perimeter is surrounded by jetbikes making it impossible to be within 2" of the hull and ≥1" away from an enemy model. Continuing with the rule under Disembarking, "If even this disembarkation is impossible they can't disembark." Which takes us back to the Rule for Wrecked, "Any models that cannot disembark are destroyed."

Explodes requires adjusting for the position of the attacker because the survivors are inside the perimeter of the vehicle (where it used to have a perimeter, more accurately) but are destroyed if they cannot fit inside that perimeter. and be 1" from the enemy. Edited thanks to input by Gorkamorka, the 1"rule DOES NOT apply.

Teeef wrote:
Explodes requires adjusting for the position of the attacker because the survivors are inside the perimeter of the vehicle (where it used to have a perimeter, more accurately) but are destroyed if they cannot fit inside that perimeter and be 1" from the enemy.

Not true, but whatever. I've already argued this point too many times, and in this very thread.

to be fair gorka the building rules DO state you can take damage AND have to disembark, and the only way you can do that is if you Explode and "place" counts as disembark.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Teeef wrote:
Explodes requires adjusting for the position of the attacker because the survivors are inside the perimeter of the vehicle (where it used to have a perimeter, more accurately) but are destroyed if they cannot fit inside that perimeter and be 1" from the enemy.

Not true, but whatever. I've already argued this point too many times, and in this very thread.

Great catch. I had been thinking that you could not "place" a model but it is "move."

I missed your comments earlier so unfortunately I am guilty of perpetuating a misleading interpretation. You are 100% correct as the rule about 1" distance is specific to the Movement rules and the Deep Strike Mishaps rules and not damage results.

Fortunately I have never played a game where this came up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:to be fair gorka the building rules DO state you can take damage AND have to disembark, and the only way you can do that is if you Explode and "place" counts as disembark.

To be fair nos giving models in a building permission to take damage and/or be forced to disembark in a minor tertiary rule does not somehow make the clear wording of the explodes result change to do both.

Round and round we go, it keeps sucking me back in.

Ok, this might be coming out of left-field a bit. Doesn't the BGB mention that you can represent the 'wrecked' result by turning the model on it's side? That would give you space to place any forcibly disembarked models, if that is the case.

Albatross wrote:Ok, this might be coming out of left-field a bit. Doesn't the BGB mention that you can represent the 'wrecked' result by turning the model on it's side? That would give you space to place any forcibly disembarked models, if that is the case.

The models who are already dead before the vehicle becomes a wreck?

As you're the third person or so in the thread to suggest placing the models post-wreck, here's page 47:
"Destroyed – wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then
take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark
are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck."

The models who are already dead before the vehicle becomes a wreck?

And even then the models wouldn't be placeable unless the vehicle was more than 4" short than it was fat tobecause they still have to be more than 1" from eth enemy.

Explodes requires adjusting for the position of the attacker because the survivors are inside the perimeter of the vehicle (where it used to have a perimeter, more accurately) but are destroyed if they cannot fit inside that perimeter. and be 1" from the enemy. Edited thanks to input by Gorkamorka, the 1"rule DOES NOT apply.

Wrong during any form of disembarkation you have to remain 1" from the enemy. In this instance placing is a type of movement just as it would be for DSing in. The rules are very clear on this and has already been covered in this thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your vehicle is surrounded and wrecked, couldn't your passengers disembark on top of the vehicle as long as they are 1" away from enemy models?

You are wrong, disembark occurs BEFORE the vehicle is wrecked, therefore the vehicle is impassable terrain.

CptZach wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your vehicle is surrounded and wrecked, couldn't your passengers disembark on top of the vehicle as long as they are 1" away from enemy models?

p14
"Models may not be placed in impassable terrain..."
p13
"Impassable terrain cannot be moved across or into."
p13
"Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain."

It's not a wreck until they're dead, and you can't put them onto an impassable terrain model (barring a weird special rule).

FlingitNow wrote:
Wrong during any form of disembarkation you have to remain 1" from the enemy. In this instance placing is a type of movement just as it would be for DSing in. The rules are very clear on this and has already been covered in this thread.

Keep making things up and wildly grasping at new rules each time to support it.

Explodes placement does not use the placement rules that are quite specific to the deep striking rules (which also don't even define placement as movement, just imply that deep striking is).
Explodes placement does not use the disembarking rules, because it does not say it does (and would instantly break the game if it tried).

Your contradictory arguments (It's DS placement that doesn't follow the DS rules! Wait, no, it's also disembarking that doesn't follow the disembarking rules! All while it doesn't say it's either!) are a joy to read.

What about jump infantry? They can end their MOVE on top of impassable terrain, can't they?. What does that mean for 'placement'?

EDIT: It would still be irrelevant, mind.

Explodes placement does not use the disembarking rules, because it does not say it does (and would instantly break the game if it tried).

Sorry why does a forced disembark not follow the disembarking rules? The vehicle explodes results in a forced disembark any type of disembark should follow the disembark rules without having to say it. Just like any shot follows the shooting rules are you claiming just because every shooting weapon doesn't specifically state it follows the shooting rules means that it doesn't?

If you are shooting you follow the shooting rules. If you are moving you follow the moving rules. If you are disembarking you follow the disembarking rules.

And please explain why this "instantly" breaks the game anymore than ignoring the disembarking rules?

FlingitNow wrote:

Explodes placement does not use the disembarking rules, because it does not say it does (and would instantly break the game if it tried).

Sorry why does a forced disembark not follow the disembarking rules? The vehicle explodes results in a forced disembark any type of disembark should follow the disembark rules without having to say it. Just like any shot follows the shooting rules are you claiming just because every shooting weapon doesn't specifically state it follows the shooting rules means that it doesn't?

If you are shooting you follow the shooting rules. If you are moving you follow the moving rules. If you are disembarking you follow the disembarking rules.

And please explain why this "instantly" breaks the game anymore than ignoring the disembarking rules?

I think the point is they don't disembark ...
...rather you're removing the vehicel that they were in and left them sitting in a heap. But more importantly they are not deploying or moving or any other rule that would trigger the 1" rule.

I think the point is they don't disembark ...

But the rules define this as a forced disembark (pg. 79 as discussed previously in this thread) how is a forced disembark not a disembark?

FlingitNow wrote:

I think the point is they don't disembark ...

But the rules define this as a forced disembark (pg. 79 as discussed previously in this thread) how is a forced disembark not a disembark?

page 79 occupying buildings? what has that got to do with anything?

Rules for passengers are found on page 67 Effects of damage. Destroyed-Wrecked is clear they must disembark, and the rule for disembark are if you can not deploy a model even my emergacy disembark it is destroyed. However Destroyed-explodes! models are place in the crater left by the vehicle.

page 79 occupying buildings? what has that got to do with anything?

Occupying Buildings erferences the tRansport vehicles rules repeatedly (as they are essentially the same rules). It refers to the result of vehicle explodes as a forced disembark. Hence it is a forced disembark, not hard to figure out from page 67 that going from embarked to disembarked is disembarking but the crux of the argument against stated that it is not directly referenced as a disembark hence it is not. Well there is the direct reference right there case closed.

FlingitNow wrote:

page 79 occupying buildings? what has that got to do with anything?

Occupying Buildings erferences the tRansport vehicles rules repeatedly (as they are essentially the same rules). It refers to the result of vehicle explodes as a forced disembark.

That doesn't work. Transports are not buildings any rules changes buildings gets do not effect transports. This is in the same way that jump infantry is not the same as infantry. I also cannot find a single reference telling me to do anything differently when the building is destroyed.

Hence it is a forced disembark, not hard to figure out from page 67 that going from embarked to disembarked is disembarking but the crux of the argument against stated that it is not directly referenced as a disembark hence it is not. Well there is the direct reference right there case closed.

But there is no direct reference. You should note that the these are a separate set of transport rules to embark ad disembark, which can be seen by the Larger heading at the start. For wrecked you are told to disembark (using the disembarking rule with exception that models that can't are destroyed), for explode you are told place using no prior rule.