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.

They are disembarked, just havent disembarked.

There is a difference between the two.

No such distinction is made by the rules.

The vehicle explodes. The models are placed on the table, with nothing in the rules to make them either "disembarked" or to indicate that they "have disembarked".

Find something to quote that the placed models are "disembarked" except for the one entry which only applies if they are "disembarked". Otherwise, your argument is entirely circular.

The english language states they are disembarked.

THey just didnt follow the rules within 40k for how to disembark.

Thus, they are disembarked troops, but have not followed the disembark rules.

So it is pretty ambiguous. Bugger. Thanks for all the responses, though. Making it clear that the issue isn't clear is helpful, strange as that may sound.

2 dissenters that do not even make clear arguments against; does not make for a lack of clarity.

It is Clear: Transport Explodes = troops can assault.

Besides this really should not come up often enough to really matter or even really ever come up in game. The argument is almost completely academic.

DeathReaper wrote:The fact still remains that It is clearly intended

Interpretation is never a fact. RAI are always interpretations.

We don't know whether they intended explosions to be disembarkation, while it's likely to be so, and I agree on your view of RAI. Still, the writer might as well have intended to turn exploded vehicles into open topped vehicles, because the top is gone now. We don't know that, and because of that there is nothing to base a RAI discussion on.

Kommissar Kel wrote:2 dissenters that do not even make clear arguments against; does not make for a lack of clarity.

What's the name of this one again? Argument ad populum or something? The number of people on a given side of an argument is totally irrelevant to its validity. [Insert obligatory reference to the earth being flat or the heliocentric solar system.]

Kommissar Kel wrote:It is Clear: Transport Explodes = troops can assault.

No it's not. It's genuinely ambiguous.

As Solkan pointed out, permission to assault the unit is dependent on their now "disembarked" status. While they do not follow the usual disembarkation process to get there, the end result is still a disembarked unit.

Mannahnin wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:2 dissenters that do not even make clear arguments against; does not make for a lack of clarity.

What's the name of this one again? Argument ad populum or something? The number of people on a given side of an argument is totally irrelevant to its validity. [Insert obligatory reference to the earth being flat or the heliocentric solar system.]

Kommissar Kel wrote:It is Clear: Transport Explodes = troops can assault.

No it's not. It's genuinely ambiguous.

As Solkan pointed out, permission to assault the unit is dependent on their now "disembarked" status. While they do not follow the usual disembarkation process to get there, the end result is still a disembarked unit.

Mannahin, I am afraid I have to disagree with that assessement. Permission to assault is granted to all models that have the ability to do so, subject to certain restrictions. Models that follow the disembarkation procedure are forbidden to do so under that particular set of conditions, as the disembarkation procedure is the condition which removes by explicit decree, that ability. Models that do not follow that procedure are not subject to the restrictions placed upon them. Just as a model that fired a non-assault weapon in the shooting phase is forbidden to assault; models that fired "assault weapons" or did *not* fire weapons *may* assault.

It is not the status of being disembarked that prevents models from assaulting. The placement of restriction from assaulting is a step in the disembarkation procedure. If that procedure is not followed, then that restriction is not placed upon them.

hearne wrote:It's splitting hairs, but that's what this thread is all about.

Yes, yes it is.

Could someone do me a favor, as I am at work and don't have my rulebook with me. Could someone cite the specific section containing the restriction on assaulting after disembarking? I'm curious about the actual wording and how it actually reads.

p.67 wrote:
-If the vehicle has already moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that Movement phase. Once the models have disembarked, the vehicle may not move any further (including pivoting on the spot). After disembarking, these models may shoot (counting as moving), but may not assault.

-If the vehicle has not yet moved, then the passengers may disembark normally and move normally. The vehicle can then also move normally. The disembarked models may shoot (counting as moving), and may assault as normal.

Hearne, I agree with your first premise, but disagree with your later ones, and conclusion. IMO just because a unit in an Exploded vehicle does not follow the normal disembarkation procedure does not mean that they are not a disembarked unit. The second paragraph of the "Destroyed- explodes!" description explicitly refers to them as "disembarked passengers".

I agree that there is some ambiguity here, but I think the most intuitive and appropriate way to resolve that is to go with the interpretation which is less likely to be a loophole.

Hm. I don't believe the specificity of the language works that way, Mannahin... but I agree that an interpretation is necessary as the same verbage can be read with dual meanings.

With that said, I DO believe the intent was that the models that survive the condition where they are placed after an explosion may not assault. Were this a game, I'm good with either interpretation so long as it's uniform. (and I would clarify it at the moment it happened, regardless of whether it was my squad or my opponents...)

This is the point at which, were we face to face, I would shake your hand and buy you a beer.