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.

The explodes! instructions are entirely self contained, given you can perform them with no reference to any other rules at all....

Except they are not. There are several other sections you need to use including the disembarking rules. As illustrated by the latest FAQ...

Find evidence within the rules, not the houserules that CHANGE the rules.

Oh wait, you cant.

When told to PLACE models where the vehicle used to be, what rules do you need actually need to reference to fulfill the requirement. Note the word "move" does not appear anywhere in that sentence.

Simple request. Oh, wait, it isnt "common sense" to follow very simple directives without referencing entirely unrelated rules that make no sense in the current situation. Sorry, forgot!

Find evidence within the rules, not the houserules that CHANGE the rules.

FAQs do not change the rules they clarify them. They cannot change the rules by definition. They are considered to be credible rules for the purposes of YMDC.

So essentially your argument has broken down to "GW are wrong they changed the rules for their house rules."

I however will continue to play by GWs rules, because I see them as the creators of the rules. Silly me, I should have realise you created 40k all along.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mainly because they followed not one single rule for Disembarking as given in the rulebook, you mean?

It was a perfectly valid interpretation.

I never said that it wasn't a valid interpretation. I'm just not at all surprised that it's not the interpretation that GW chose to go with.

This.

I never agreed with nosferatu1001's interpretation of the intent of the rules, but the interpretation was valid until the FAQ clarified. Largely for the reason insaniak stated here:

insaniak wrote:Whether or not you followed the normal rules process of disembarking is irrelevant. As backed up by the paragraph immediately after the 'Explodes' text on page 67.

FAQs can and do change the rules without being Errata.

Should they? No, technically they should label the changes as errata.
It should be obvious by the actual rulebook that they (GW) are neither attentive nor concerned about such details, however.

The evidence for the passengers in a Destroyed - Explodes result disembarking is the statement on page 67:

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

'disembarked', a possible past tense form of the verb 'disembark'.

Agreed, solkan.
I have always read it that way--but even so, I 100% understand the people who say otherwise.

For me it has always been simple enough to inquire with new opponents how they read it.

Now it is one less thing I need on my list of pre-game discussion with new folks.

I just think that it's incredibly troubling that people are getting worked up about whether FAQ questions can change the rules.

The simple fact of the matter is that, even though GW does not say so, the deciding factor between whether something is changed in a FAQ or an errata appears to be whether the change can be done without changing the page layout of the product, and whether GW is promising to make that change in future printings. That is the de facto distinction between errata and FAQ's, in spite of the claim in the Shrine of Knowledge page.

Solkan - you can fulfill the condition for now being disembarked, without having followed the rules in the BRB for performing the disembark action.

In English and prior to the rules change in the FAQ this was entirely valid.

Gonna love having Tempest Wrath up against SR and pretty much all of the DE.

nosferatu1001 wrote:In English and prior to the rules change in the FAQ this was entirely valid.

Sure... but it was a valid interpretation. Not the valid interpretation.

So, again, this is only a rules change if you chose to follow that one interpretation. Many people didn't, and don't find this to be a change at all.

@Nosferatu1001: So what? My statement was made in response to about a dozen posts between you and others which appeared to demonstrate a complete failure to communicate. You stated that there was no evidence to support the conclusion and demanded that someone present any.

One page of the rulebook said one thing, and another page implied something else. That statement implying something else happens to support the FAQ statement. This is evidence, and it's what you asked for.

The exact same situation holds for the FAQ answer concerning disembarking. One or more statements in the rules implied that disembarking was movement. The FAQ answer clarifies the situation by confirming is a form of movement by being subject to the prohibition against moving through other models.

Clarification. Rules change. Po-ta-to. Poh-tah-toh. All of the arguments were done to death way back when 5th edition came out.

solkan I think you've done a great job presenting valid evidence.

syypher wrote:With the new faq rules out...if a storm raven moves flat out will the units inside + the dreadnought be destroyed on a roll of 5 or 6 on the vehicle damage chart?

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it
moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Yes, as it says in the new FAQ if a fast transport vehicle is destroyed after/while moving flat out the units inside are destroyed...

thanks for directing me to this thread seems we were wrong.

nixti wrote:

syypher wrote:With the new faq rules out...if a storm raven moves flat out will the units inside + the dreadnought be destroyed on a roll of 5 or 6 on the vehicle damage chart?

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it
moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Yes, as it says in the new FAQ if a fast transport vehicle is destroyed after/while moving flat out the units inside are destroyed...

But only if it's destroyed in the same turn in which it moved flat out.

Page 9 of the rulebook specifies that "turn" always means "player turn".

Therefore, if a fast transport moves flat out and is destroyed in the enemy turn, then the passengers can still disembark as normal.

It's only if the transport is destroyed in the same (player) turn (by being a skimmer and being immobilised on dangerous terrain, or by ramming/tank shock, or by scattering blasts etc) then the passengers are destroyed.

I know, that's what I meant with "after/while".