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.

Mannahnin wrote:The disembarking rules are quite clear that the model is placed in contact with the hull, and then can take a normal move up to 6", with the additional restriction that it has to end that move with the entire base within 6".

I have never said or even inferred otherwise, just answering questions as asked.

KGatch113 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:There's only one disembark in the game. No need for them to specify which one they mean.

I disagree. I think the Deep Strike rules are self contained, and do not refer you to the regular disembarkation for a reason.[/q]
There are no rules for disembarking in the DS rules. It says you can disembark. What does disembark mean? How does one disembark?

[Q]Let me ask you this.....what is the point of them saying you cannot move further other than to disembark???? What is the reason behind that? They already say you can't assault, but you can run. You can't move any further after a normal disembarkation from a normal transport....so I'm trying to figure out what is the point of that sentence. They are very crystal clear on what you can or can't do.

I already answered this. The DS section applies to more than vehicles. Infantry who DS cannot move but can run. That's why they have it there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. The rules on disembarking (p79) are pretty darn clear. There are two separate parts; in two separate paragraphs. Placing Disembarked Models states that the model is placed in contact with the hull. And "The model can then make a normal move."

It's a move. And the DS rules specifically forbid it.

Just because it is in two paragraphs doesn't make it a different process. Both paragraphs are contained in the section called placing disembarked models and the multiple paragraphs show it is a two step process. So when it is time to place the models that disembark from the transport that was DS you read the whole section not just the one paragraph.

Are we all agreeing then? Page 79 says a model disembarking from a transport disembarks by being placed in contact with the hull, and then can make a normal move of up to six inches.

Page 36 says models arriving in a deep striking transport cannot move further, other than to disembark.

So they can be placed in contact with the hull, but they can't make that normal move, because that would be moving further. Ja?

Mannahnin wrote:Are we all agreeing then? Page 79 says a model disembarking from a transport disembarks by being placed in contact with the hull, and then can make a normal move of up to six inches.

Page 36 says models arriving in a deep striking transport cannot move further, other than to disembark.

So they can be placed in contact with the hull, but they can't make that normal move, because that would be moving further. Ja?

No. Placing the model by the hull, going 6" away then moving another 6" would be moving further.

But the disembarking rules specifically and explicitly tell you that the six inches is "a normal move". It's not a placement.

At first I thought this was a buff to pods but now I'm not sure. I'm at work for a few more weeks without my rulebook but I thought the new disembark rule was something along the lines of "place model in base contact with hatch and may move up to 6" from hatch, place next model....repeat until all models have disembarked." am I remembering wrong?

Does it actually say place model at hatch and "may then make a normal move"?

Mannahnin wrote:But the disembarking rules specifically and explicitly tell you that the six inches is "a normal move". It's not a placement.

Context is everything. In the context of it being included in a section with multiple parts the wording "normal move" is different than the wording "move as normal." Given that it had to be specifically added that it is affected by difficult terrain further convinces me that the "normal move" is a placement. All moves are affected by difficult terrain, if this is a regular run of the mill move as normal that is separate and distinct from the disembarking rules why specifically include that?

Ah...there we go. The DS rules do not differentiate between a normal move or move normally. They say you cannot move any further other than to disembark. It's fairly clear from the BRB that under the disembarking rules it is a two stage act...the model leaves the transport, and then gets to move up to 6 inches away.

Mannahnin wrote:Are we all agreeing then? Page 79 says a model disembarking from a transport disembarks by being placed in contact with the hull, and then can make a normal move of up to six inches.

Page 36 says models arriving in a deep striking transport cannot move further, other than to disembark.

So they can be placed in contact with the hull, but they can't make that normal move, because that would be moving further. Ja?

No, no one is disagreeing with page 36, what we are in disagreement about is the 6 inch move part of the disembark move? I say yes because it is under the disembark heading.

tgf wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Are we all agreeing then? Page 79 says a model disembarking from a transport disembarks by being placed in contact with the hull, and then can make a normal move of up to six inches.

Page 36 says models arriving in a deep striking transport cannot move further, other than to disembark.

So they can be placed in contact with the hull, but they can't make that normal move, because that would be moving further. Ja?

No, no one is disagreeing with page 36, what we are in disagreement about is the 6 inch move part of the disembark move? I say yes because it is under the disembark heading.

It's all under the disembarking subsection as well as shown in the multiple pictures labelled as Disembarking and Emergency Disembarking.

Mannahnin, out of curiosity, what was your stance on the old 5th edition question of a CSM daemon prince and his wings that move like a jump pack? I see similarities in this question with that one in that you're seeing rules under a subsection but are not attributing them to that subsection due to the wording.

I know the current post isrefering to Drop pods but as I am reading the arguments "AGAINST THE 6" MOVE" a question came to my mind. Would ANYONE be able to disembark from a non open toped transport legaly? Say a Blood Angels Land Raider Deepstrikes. How could a squad of 5 Terminators Legaly disembark if they could only be placed one at a time in B2B with an access point? Or Eldar Units form a Deep Striking Falcon? Or Firewarriors.

I am going to have to go with the 6" move camp on this one and here is why:

1 Deepstrike rules say that models cannot move other than to disembark from a vehicle.

2 Disembarking form a vehicle states you place a model and then move it 6"

I would think we would have to take the disembarkation rules as a whole??

Dooley- Yup. Agree the totality of the disembarkation includes the model ending wholly within 6" of the transport (subject to the actual rule description, and normal movement rule mechanics- difficult/dangerous, etc). Instead of models having to be nmt 2" from access point (in 5ed), they now (in 6ed) just have to be wholly w/in 6" (and following the mechanic described in the diesmbarkation movement restrictions).

edit- spelling and clarity

Dooley wrote:I know the current post isrefering to Drop pods but as I am reading the arguments "AGAINST THE 6" MOVE" a question came to my mind. Would ANYONE be able to disembark from a non open toped transport legaly? Say a Blood Angels Land Raider Deepstrikes. How could a squad of 5 Terminators Legaly disembark if they could only be placed one at a time in B2B with an access point? Or Eldar Units form a Deep Striking Falcon? Or Firewarriors.

I am going to have to go with the 6" move camp on this one and here is why:

1 Deepstrike rules say that models cannot move other than to disembark from a vehicle.

2 Disembarking form a vehicle states you place a model and then move it 6"

I would think we would have to take the disembarkation rules as a whole??

Exactly, the 6" is part of Disembarkation... and Disembarkation is a multi-step process done one model at a time.

Cheers,

Dooley wrote:I know the current post isrefering to Drop pods but as I am reading the arguments "AGAINST THE 6" MOVE" a question came to my mind. Would ANYONE be able to disembark from a non open toped transport legaly? Say a Blood Angels Land Raider Deepstrikes. How could a squad of 5 Terminators Legaly disembark if they could only be placed one at a time in B2B with an access point? Or Eldar Units form a Deep Striking Falcon? Or Firewarriors.

I am going to have to go with the 6" move camp on this one and here is why:

1 Deepstrike rules say that models cannot move other than to disembark from a vehicle.

2 Disembarking form a vehicle states you place a model and then move it 6"

I would think we would have to take the disembarkation rules as a whole??

Great point. I was thinking something like this too, but I.couldn't think of examples of DS vehicles.

Dooley wrote:I know the current post isrefering to Drop pods but as I am reading the arguments "AGAINST THE 6" MOVE" a question came to my mind. Would ANYONE be able to disembark from a non open toped transport legaly? Say a Blood Angels Land Raider Deepstrikes. How could a squad of 5 Terminators Legaly disembark if they could only be placed one at a time in B2B with an access point? Or Eldar Units form a Deep Striking Falcon? Or Firewarriors.

This would be the same situation as disembarking when the door is up against impassable terrain, they would lose a few models, since the models could not be placed. That being said, it's probably a bad idea to disembark when there is not enough room to place your models, so don't disembark.

My POINT was that you couldnt PHYSICALLY deploy a full squad. Only so many models will fit in Base to base with an acess door of a vehicle. You would be able to fit maybe 4 Space marines against the back hatch of a Rhino and maybe even 3 Terms in B2b with a Land raider Front. Not getting that 6" deployment move esentially bottlenecks the squad as they try and clamor one at a time out the same door. If the First guy out doesnt get out of the way they wont have room to get out. Three Terms hop out and storm bolter something to death and the other two guys, since they did not get out DIE?!

I see what you are saying "SO DONT GET OUT THEN". However that just doesnt make much sence. The 6" deployment helps eliminate the bottle neck effect and I would have to apply it to Drop Pods and other such deepstriking vehicles as well, seeing as thats how the "DISEMBARKATION RULES" work.

Sure Deep Striking does not allow for a "NORMAL MOVE" however, "DISEMBARKING" is NOT a Normal move

Edit: After thought

Also form your perspective a drop pod player would have to form a ring around the drop pod when they are "deployed" . This just does not make Tactical sence :(.

Emergency disembark. Try it.

I belive the argument of "DOES THE DISEMBARKATION COUNT AS A "NORMAL" MOVE" part will be brought back up on that one!

If they Deep Struck they CANT move and thus CANT emergancy disembark.

Note I feel that THAT ^^^^^^^ is the WRONG way to play the rule however, that is what table talk is for. We can sit here and dispute things all day however, one person will have their opinions on one thing and others theirs. Unfortunatley there is no "YUP YOU ARE RIGHT" sorta thing to finaly settle it.

argh, misread a post

Dooley wrote:I know the current post isrefering to Drop pods but as I am reading the arguments "AGAINST THE 6" MOVE" a question came to my mind. Would ANYONE be able to disembark from a non open toped transport legaly? Say a Blood Angels Land Raider Deepstrikes. How could a squad of 5 Terminators Legaly disembark if they could only be placed one at a time in B2B with an access point? Or Eldar Units form a Deep Striking Falcon? Or Firewarriors.

Well, none of the Eldar or Tau transports Deep Strike, so I don’t see why there’s an issue with them. Very few transports can deep strike. Stormravens, BA land raiders, drop pods, Dark Eldar Raiders (and venoms?) when you use the Baron… are there any others?

The land raider has three hatches, so that’s quite a bit of frontage to put bases in contact with. More than enough space for the terminators. Drop pods and the DE vehicles are all open-topped, so you can surround the model with dudes disembarking. Stormravens use the big oval flying base for disembarking, so again you can easily surround it with dudes.

Not sure what the problem would be with disembarking units out of these things, even if you can’t move them further after placing the models in contact. The only possible issue would be big units of regular infantry disembarking from a LR Crusader or Redeemer, say, but GW not thinking of that would be consistent with similar issues in the past. Technically a big squad of Necron Warriors (over 14 models or so) could never disembark from a Monolith under the 3rd, 4th, or 5th ed rules. GW just expected everyone to kludge it as close as possible.

warboss wrote:Mannahnin, out of curiosity, what was your stance on the old 5th edition question of a CSM daemon prince and his wings that move like a jump pack? I see similarities in this question with that one in that you're seeing rules under a subsection but are not attributing them to that subsection due to the wording.

Please clarify. I don’t follow.

Mannahnin wrote:Please clarify. I don’t follow.

There used to be an question of whether a CSM daemon prince with wings could deep strike (moves as if jump infantry). Some people took that to only mean he moved in the movement phase as jump infantry whereas others said the paragraph under movement for jumpers included the rules for deepstrike so he gets it too. Basically, some people didn't consider part of the rules under the same heading as part of the same category and artificially separated it into its own subset that they wanted to ignore... GW and their FAQ eventually disagreed with them IIRC. I see something similar here in that you seem to consider the placement next to the exits as the disembarcation and the subsequent 6" repositioning as separate due to the "normal move" terminology whereas others here (myself included) see the whole entry under the disembarking heading to be part and parcel of "disembarking".

What do you think of the pictures under the heading then? They are simply labeled disembarking and include the 6" range from the exits. That would seem to lend credence to that movement being part of the act of disembarking and not a separate move despite the "normal" labelling.

Okay, I get you. I never tried Deep Striking until GW FAQd it to say you could. I tend to err on the side of the more conservative/less powerful interpretation on most ambiguous issues.

I think there's some real ambiguity here, but the phrasing is really making me think it's a move, beyond the placement. The fact that you have to take difficult, for example. I could honestly see GW going either way with it; they've certainly surprised me sometimes. Speaking as someone who has armies which can use drop pods, and has several models, I'll be playing it the more conservative way until and unless GW rule otherwise or I get pursueded otherwise or outvoted in the INAT council.

I agree that it could have been worded better but in those situations I tend to incorporate the pictures and overall message (like bolded headings) in helping find a meaning. Another thing to consider would be the wording in the next section under "Emergency Disembarkation". It says " a model can be placed anywhere in contact iwth the vehicle's hull and can then move as for a normal disembarkation". It refers specifically to that second step of moving in the 6" bubble as part of disembarkation. Other than possibly the "normal move" terminology (which I don't think personally separates it but I can see why someone else could consider it that way), the rules refer to the 6" bubble rearrangement of figures as specifically as a step/part of the act of disembarking.

Two thoughts

In the DS rules, it mentions that after disembarking a unit may not move further. That implies a movement having already happened. I don't want to go all grammer nuts, but that sentence only works if the models have already moved in some way.

Now I'm not saying the process of DS and/or the process of placing models against an access point ISN'T the "first move" in this sentence, but usually those things are not referred to as movement in 40k

The other thing that gives me pause, is that under disembarkment rules, it takes the time to describe terrain, effect on shooting, etc. Why would it do this if this was a true movement instead of a part of the disembarking process. All they would say is "and may then start its turn" instead of two paragraphs on how the are placed and a reminder that then "count as" having moved.

Again, I'm not sold on either side, just throwing out food for thought to those that can look at it objectively

Side note: they did say "further" instead of "farther"... that might be revealing, or it might be poor grammar.