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.

Posted By mauleed 08/04/2006 1:34 PM

That really makes sense to you? Becaus it's terrain and terrain has some of the properties of area terrain it's now area terrain? Interesting application of logic there buddy.

No wonder I win so much. I'm playing the handicapped.

I said it can be seen how it could be confusing, just like how people confuse drop pod rules with the deepstrike rules. Explosions leave difficult terrain, wrecks leave an area on the table with similar rules to area terrain. You even admit it has some of the properties of area terrain, and that can confuse people. Admitting it can be confusing is not the same as admitting you are confused by it, but way to show off that ego.

 

On topic I go with the picture from the BGB that shows what places you can deploy with little grey half circles. There is no room to decide the order of the wreck being there to deploy in so anyone on board should be forced to deploy on the area outside the vehicle.

Sorry, I forgot to mention the fact that since I believe wrecks are still vehicles and not terrain they can follow the rules for both (vehicles and wrecks). So, they can still disembark per the rules for disembarking from vehicles on page 62, but may be placed on top of the vehicle per the rules on page 68. A vehicle that isn't a wreck would be bound by only the rules on page 62. In other words, the vehicle is still there. It's just a wreck now.

Nope. The vehicle is DESTROYED. I'm assuming you understand the definition of the word without me posting it. A destroyed vehicle is gone, kaput, finito.

Or would you like to claim that wrecked vehicles still move, shoot and can be embarked upon?

Either way though, it allows us to utilize a step procedure and not try to assume everything happens simultaneously since that would force passengers disembarking from a vehicle that explodes to be hit by the vehicles explosion in addition to any other damage they may recieve. I don't think that's what GW intended either.

No, disembarking passengers would be hit by the exploding vehicle if they deployed before the explosion was resolved. If all of the damage results are done simultaneously then the passengers would not be hit by the destroyed result (just by the passengers wounding rule).

Under the Wrecks section on p.68 it refers to a 'wreck' as a "wrecked vehicle". Perhaps this passage implies that 'wrecked' is simply as a "state" of the vehicle (like imobilized or stunned) this problem becomes much simpler.

Its still technically a vehicle, so there is no problem disembarking form a non-vehicle
and Since the rules for disembarking from a vehicle are clear there is no problem on where they can go to (not on the vehicle) 

winterman: One persons stupid sucker is another's pure rock visionary

Augustus> If a squad is traveling in a transport that is destroyed can the survivors be placed in the area terrain generated by the wreckage of the vehicle (assuming their exit(s) are not blocked)?

mauleed> There is no area terrain generated by the wreckage of the vehicle. Why on earth would anyone think a wreck is area terrain?

Page 25, lists cover as area terrain, including wrecks/vehicles. Basically anything that has a 2d area, provides a cover save and/or is difficult terrain is area terrain, there's a big list on P25 Ed.

...

@Yakface

If a wreck and a vehicle are something different, as you imply, why is Wreck/Vehicle listed on P25 as synonymous?

Yakface> A destroyed vehicle is gone, kaput, finito.

Actually, only pen 6s cause that, (vehicle removal) otherwise the models are left on the table right?  There is no text "replace the destroyed vehicle with a wreck" in those results is there? Only replace the vehicle with a crater for Pen 6s (Ord 5 or 6) in the vehicle pen chart.  Technically, a wreck is still a vehicle, by page 26, albiet a non functional destroyed one. 

This also fits consistently with the wysiwyg LOS regarding vehicle sight rules if wrecks are played the same way.  If wrecks were not area terrain (and models on top were assumed to literally be there instead of within them) how could models gain a cover save? Wouldn't they essentially be exposed on top of the wreck instead?  Obviously since vehicle models can not be exploded into pieces when they are destroyed an abstract rule is presented to represent the models hiding in the wreck simulated by their placement on top of the intact model instead.

Furthermore, page 68 clearly defines it is possible to be on top of a wreck and get a cover save where it states "...provides a 4+ cover save for models on top of it..."

This supports the idea that it is possible to be on top of a wreck re-enforcing the idea of disembarking there.

Well, I don't think either side will convince the other of the state of the vehicle upon being wrecked.

However, yakface, I feel I must comment on the whole "simultaneous" issue. I would like to re-iterate that maybe I'm reading the BGB with too much of a skew toward logical steps but that's just how my brain works.

To me simultaneous would mean that the vehicle is hit, damage is done, resolved, and passengers disembarked. This wouldn't occur in the order I just listed them in, or any particular order at all. They would all happen at the same time. So, if the result of the damage is vehicle explodes, and there are disembarked passengers within the kill zone, they are hit. This is only because they are disembarked at the same time the damage is resolved. It wouldn't make any difference what order the player does these steps in because they are all simultaneous in the game space. Another example would be if two models have the same initiative. They attack simultaneously regardless of which player throws the dice first or what models are removed as casualties. Sometimes, players actually run into instances where their dead models actually score kills because they didn't die before or after they attacked, but simultaneously.

And maybe I'm nitpicking and you're going for something else altogether. If that's the case then forgive me for trying to read too much into the word "simultaneous." Maybe, we can start a new phrase "pseudo-simultaneous." Then, we can all laugh at why I'm posting at 1:30 AM on Saturday.

In response to augustus, who said:

"Page 25, lists cover as area terrain, including wrecks/vehicles. Basically anything that has a 2d area, provides a cover save and/or is difficult terrain is area terrain, there's a big list on P25 Ed."

Again, I'm not sure what escapes you here. Yes, all area terrain is cover, but not all cover is area terrain. Surely at some point in grade school logic they explained to you that while all Collies are dogs, not all dogs are therefore collies. This is, without question, the simplest logical fallacy to identify.

If you like, I can continue the rudimentary lesson in logic, but I think you're going to feel rather silly if I do.

Page 25, lists cover as area terrain, including wrecks/vehicles.

Page 25 does no such thing. In fact, Area Terrain and Wrecks are not mentioned in the same sentence at all on page 25. The only reference to wrecks is in the chart showing the save for each different type of cover.

If a wreck and a vehicle are something different, as you imply, why is Wreck/Vehicle listed on P25 as synonymous?

So... you're saying that wrecks are Area Terrain, and Vehicles and Wrecks are the same thing... So Vehicles are Area Terrain?


Wrecks and Vehicles are not 'listed as synonymous'

They are simply included in the same chart entry because they both grant the same cover save.

If wrecks were not area terrain (and models on top were assumed to literally be there instead of within them) how could models gain a cover save?

They gain a cover save because the rule on page 68 specifically says they do... because the vehicle model is not, as you pointed out, actually destroyed to make a pile of wreckage.

If the wreck were Area Terrain, there would be no need for page 68 to state that the models on top gain a 4+ cover save, since that would be already covered by the rules anyway.

mauleed> Again, I'm not sure what escapes you here. Yes, all area terrain is cover, but not all cover is area terrain. Surely at some point in grade school logic they explained to you that while all Collies are dogs, not all dogs are therefore collies. This is, without question, the simplest logical fallacy to identify.

The only cover that aren't area terrain are fences, walls and the like, single pieces with no bases essentially, it's all listed on page 25, I'm not making any reverse logic claims like you outlined.  There's simply a list on page 25, all the terrain on it is area terrain except for the "no base" items like walls.  There is no logical falicy.

mauleed> If you like, I can continue the rudimentary lesson in logic, but I think you're going to feel rather silly if I do.

Flattery will get you nowhere!  Continue your misconstrued juvenile attacks all you like, I can weather them easily.

I have an idea, make the counter logic case, if you can, and leave the incitement behind or leave the thread?

insaniak> Page 25 does no such thing. In fact, Area Terrain and Wrecks are not mentioned in the same sentence at all on page 25. The only reference to wrecks is in the chart showing the save for each different type of cover.

Wrecks and Vehicles are not 'listed as synonymous'

Yes, they are listed as synonymous, in the chart on page 25, at the bottom, they are listed as "vehicles/wreck". It is black and white.

insaniak> They are simply included in the same chart entry because they both grant the same cover save.

But they (vehicle/wreck) are on the same line, everything in the chart on the same line is a synonymous entry, it's clear by reading the chart, like ruins/walls buildings being equivalents, there are no entries that say "building/wreck/trench" for example.  The reason they are listed with slashes on the same line is clear in the text, because they are synonymous

insaniak> So... you're saying that wrecks are Area Terrain, and Vehicles and Wrecks are the same thing... So Vehicles are Area Terrain?

Your conclusion not mine.  I am saying wrecks are area terrain.

insaniak> If the wreck were Area Terrain, there would be no need for page 68 to state that the models on top gain a 4+ cover save, since that would be already covered by the rules anyway.

Not really insaniak, in the rules area terrain is described as something with a base, and loose scenic items on it that can be moved out of the way for models to be positioned.  When vehicles get destroyed and become area terrain there is no base to define the area, and the destroyed bits that would theoreticaly be scattered about it granting the cover can't be repositioned to allow a squads placement.  So wrecks need a special case rule.

Wreck give a cover save so you should be able to disembark on top. I agree with Glaive co and augustus and the rest. unfortunatly the others on this thread just think they play handicapped people who dont know the rules. More likely they dont see the rules their way so are therefore handicapped.

Augustus, you list two premises and a conclusion and I'll debunk it.

Otherwise I'm not wasting my time, as your claim is so obviously false on its face.

okay, pg. 68 BGB, Wrecks paragraph:

"It continues to block LOS as if it were intact but counts as difficult terrain for Inf. movement.

It counts as difficult terrain for vehicles with a higher frontal armor but is impassable terrain

for other vehicles. It provides a 4+ Cover Save for models on top of it or looking around it."


i think it a matter of timing. the vehicle gets popped, the troops leave the vehicle following

disembarking rules. they could get back on top of it on the next turn, and gain a 4+ cover

save. but not disembarking on top. if it were legal to do, you could normaly disembark on top,

not just when it's an emergency.

i don't see how we are calling a wrecked vehicle, Area Terrain. to me an "area" is a forrest.

Area terrain can be a forrest, or it can be anything defined before the game as area terrain, such as a building or water.

But a vehicle is never area terrain, even after it becomes a wreck.

Augustus

The only cover that aren't area terrain are fences, walls and the like, single pieces with no bases essentially, it's all listed on page 25,

And again, you're reading something that simply isn't on that page. Page 25 does NOT list what types of terrain are Area Terrain. The closest it gets is the chart listing the variuous cover saves, which simply lists the Sizes that the various terrain pieces are counted as if they are Area Terrain.

Yes, they are listed as synonymous, in the chart on page 25, at the bottom, they are listed as "vehicles/wreck". It is black and white

Which simply means that for the purposes of figuring out what cover save they provide, they are the same. It doesn't make automatically make them the same in any other way.

Your conclusion not mine. I am saying wrecks are area terrain.

And you're also saying that vehicles and wrecks are the same thing. You can't have it both ways... either they're the same, or they're not.

in the rules area terrain is described as something with a base, and loose scenic items on it that can be moved out of the way for models to be positioned

Do you even bother to check the rulebook before posting what you think it says? Because yet again, you're claiming it says something that it doesn't.

In 'the rules'... specifically page 17, under the heading 'Area Terrain'... Area Terrain is defined simply as a Terrain feature with a distinct boundary. This can be a base, or any other sort of distinct border. It even lists a couple of other ideas for terrain features without bases.

A wreck has a defined boundary. It doesn't need a base. If it counted as Area Terrain, the terrain feature would simply extend to the boundaries of the vehicle. No need for redundant rules entries repeating the rules for Area Terrain.


Beef:

Wreck give a cover save so you should be able to disembark on top.

Vehicles give a cover save as well. What does that have to do with being able to disembark on top?

Page 62 provides a chart that very clearly defines the disembarkation zone. If you think there is some rule that in some way invalidates this chart, feel free to post it.

what cover save do vehicles give?? i thought they just blocked line of sight?/

Have a look at Page 25 of your rulebook. Specifically at the table that shows cover saves for different obstacles... the one that we've been discussing over the last 2 pages.

Posted by beef on 08/06/2006 7:09 PM
what cover save do vehicles give?? i thought they just blocked line of sight?

And what happens when you can see a model over a vehicle? Because it is only the vehicle that blocks line of sight, not the empty air above it.

"And what happens when you can see a model over a vehicle? Because it is only the vehicle that blocks line of sight, not the empty air above it."

as if things aren't convoluted enough....

What's convoluted is pretending you don't see a Carnifex towering over a Rhino just because it's on the other side of the vehicle.

easy Ghaz.

i was only commenting on how the thread has taken another turn.

"What's convoluted is pretending you don't see a Carnifex towering over a Rhino just because it's on the other side of the vehicle."

that's not complicated, that's someone taking advantage of the rules.

i saw that it say 4+ but its for wreck/vehicles.  i always thought once the vehicle is destroyed it becomes a wreck and gives a 4+.  i never though the catual vehicle while intact gave a 4+ save.??  maybe to montrous creatures like carnifexs maybe.  as for blocking line of sight it would block line of sight to models smaller that it like infantry, bikes etc.  it would not block line of sight to a carnifex or a landraider.  the carnifex would get  a 4+ save and the landraider could roll for a obscured target.

it would not block line of sight to a carnifex or a landraider.

Nor would it block LOS to any smaller model that you can actually see at least a part of.

Being smaller does not automatically hide you from view. Troops in an elevated position can often see past vehicles.

The cover save applies to any model that is partially obscured by the vehicle.

Just to throw a kink in it, cover saves aren't dependent on being obscured by cover. They're now dependent on the shot going over cover. So if there's a size one rubble pile between you and your target, but 12" away from both of you, he still gets his 4" cover.

It's an odd change in 4th, but it's there.

Posted By mauleed 08/08/2006 6:46 AM

Just to throw a kink in it, cover saves aren't dependent on being obscured by cover. They're now dependent on the shot going over cover. So if there's a size one rubble pile between you and your target, but 12" away from both of you, he still gets his 4" cover.

It's an odd change in 4th, but it's there.

I've always played it that way, I thought it was obvious.

if a landraider is behind a rhino does the rhhino even though its smaller block line of sight? in the BBB its says vehichles block line of sight to other vehickles behind them.

Vehicles block LOS. The empty air above them does not.

If you can see the Land Raider, you can shoot it. It's that simple.

target priority would call for you to shoot at the Rhino first though.

pass the Ld test and then you could shoot at the Land Raider.

You don't need to pass a target priority check to shoot a large target like a land raider.

Posted By nobody 08/09/2006 7:36 AM
You don't need to pass a target priority check to shoot a large target like a land raider.

Unless there is another Large Target that is closer, such as the Rhino in the example.

i have lost the original reason for this post amongst the random madness