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.

I am sure that this has been discussed before, but I can't find a thread on it.

This weekend, I surrounded a battle wagon full of cybork orks and a warboss with drop pods and gaunts. I then popped the battle wagon and wrecked it. The judge tried to say that emergency disembarkation allowed the units to get "on top" of the battle wagon.

I argued that emergency disembarkation simply allows you to exit the vehicle from areas that are not near an access port, but you still have to abide by the 1 inch from an enemy rule, and any unit that can't get out is destroyed.

My opponent agreed with me and we ignored the judge. I even allowed him to disembark his warboss on top of the deathroller to be fair since it felt like a D-bag move to begin with.

Thoughts? I would like you to include page numbers to support your statement if possible so that I can have something to refer to if this comes up again.

I seem to remember GWAR saying something about you cant place minis ontop of a wreck first, because they have to get OUT of the vehicle for it to become a wreck, hence you cant put them ontop of the wreck. Im sorry for being a bit vague but I know I read something like that a day or 2 ago

KingCracker wrote:I seem to remember GWAR saying something about you cant place minis ontop of a wreck first, because they have to get OUT of the vehicle for it to become a wreck, hence you cant put them ontop of the wreck. Im sorry for being a bit vague but I know I read something like that a day or 2 ago

Correct AFAIK - pg 67 clearly describes when a wreck changes from a unit to a terrain piece, and it's most assuredly after the models have disembarked.

Yea I just read pg67 again to refresh myself, and it says pretty simply there at the bottom of the first paragraph,
"if even this disembarkation is impossible, they CANT DISEMBARK"

Then on the wrecked section it says
"any passengers that cant disembark, are destroyed"


So those boyz would of been dead as dead

KingCracker wrote:I seem to remember GWAR saying something about you cant place minis ontop of a wreck first, because they have to get OUT of the vehicle for it to become a wreck, hence you cant put them ontop of the wreck. Im sorry for being a bit vague but I know I read something like that a day or 2 ago

Ding Ding Ding we have a wiener!

Emergency Disembarking doesn't allow you to get on top of the wreck. The Orks were sadly SOL.

See GWAR you might be a hardcore RAW nut job, but you still have a very important role here at DAKKA

And that proves that people listen to you.

Not to mention I think thats a VERY effective tactic.

This is only on a wrecked roll though correct? Exploded result lets them emergency disembark into the crater correct?

Brother Ramses wrote:This is only on a wrecked roll though correct? Exploded result lets them emergency disembark into the crater correct?

Explodes mean they never "disembark". They are just placed in the crater. The rules do not cover what happens if there is not enough room.

Yes, because the rules tell you to place them where the vehicle was, and the explosion rules tell you that that location is now an area of difficult terrain.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

KingCracker wrote:
Not to mention I think thats a VERY effective tactic.

Oddly enough, if you want to surround a vehicle with a Rolla...most Ork players would gripe up a storm if you placed a unit on top of the Rolla, yet will still use it as a point of disembarkation.


Strange.

Well honestly that depends on who you play. The rolla took forever, many signatures, sending GW a petition everyday for 2 months to finally say weather or not it works on vehicles, they for damn sure arnt going to say weather or not it counts as part of the hull.

Personally Im of the mind that it does not count for the hull, but I can see why people DO use it for that reason, as once you glue it on there.......its glued on there. Some guys pivot them up in the air so they dont get in the way, others use magnets.

Id say if you counted it as part of the hull for measuring shooting and taking hits, then you should put your minis around the front of it. If you DONT count it as part of the hull, then let them gripe.

Friendsd and I decided that once it is wrecked it is therefore terrain, but that immediate time that they are disembarking where it s transfering from model status to terrain statusis confusing so we decided to just count it as terrain. that way, the beefy unit doesnt completely die, but we also measure that 1'' off models from the head of the assualting unit, so the area is very limited on top of something small, i.e. rhino. afaik, rules state it becomes terrain it just doesnt say when. you can move over the wreck after so we just count it immediate. disembarkation doesnt state that the model has to be so far away from the wreck, or vehicle, just not inside it (on top is not inside), so we allow deployment. anyway that s our reasoning for allowing. it becomes terrain immediatly, that s why they have to get out, and its a limited number of models due to the 1'' off enemy models, so it carries the fluff that some may have been killed in the vehicle being turned into a sardine can and some may have been lucky enough to escape while crapping their pants.

Well, to be fair to the ork player, he didn't ask for me to let his warboss out. This was the first time he had ever had this move pulled on him and I showed him mercy and suggested it to him.

The game was a complete wrap by that point and I wanted the guy to have some fun beating on my trygon Prime for a turn before it squished him.

If all else fails, there is always the 4+ I can place my units on top, 3- I can't. Thats a favorite of mine in case of a disagreeable opponent. Ahh, remembering a not so friendly opponent at 'ard boys this year... sorry off topic, but the guy continually trying to get me DQ for shutting down his massacre to a minor victory... Necrons are tricky fellows (my rules were right and we 4+ a disagreement on a cover save that went in my favor)

themrsleepy wrote:If all else fails, there is always the 4+ I can place my units on top, 3- I can't.

So would you mind if on a 4+ my Space Wolves all have S10 and Move 56" a turn?

The RaW is very, VERY clear. Anyone wanting to disembark on top of the wreck is, in accordance with the law of the land, someone who is knowingly and willingly performing an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition, characteristically employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others

Where does it say in the rulebook that they CANNOT? If you don't mind me asking...

themrsleepy wrote:Where does it say in the rulebook that they CANNOT? If you don't mind me asking...

That's not how the rules work.

The rules tell you what you can do. The rules do not say you CAN disembark on top of another model (which is what the wreck is until AFTER everyone disembarks), so you cannot.

By your logic, it doesn't say Tanks cannot move 67", so that means they can!

So, if I understand this correctly, if you are surrounded it is better to be blown up than just wrecked... because the models will all die in the wreck yet somehow miraculously survive an internal explosion that blows the machine to smitherines?? (wounds and saving throws non-withstanding)

Correct. No one said it had to make sense.

Yes. Blowing up would have been advantageous for him, because he would have killed several hormagaunts, and I would not have been able to assault the units in the wreckage that turn. I actually rolled an immobilize, but it was open topped so it wrecked it.

The rules as far as I know do not state exactly when it changes from a model to when it becomes terrain. Only after a wrecked result it becomes terrain. Is there a specific sentence that states when it becomes terrain or is it only 'once a model suffers a wrecked result it becomes terrain'? If there is such a sentence please by all means point it out, and I will heartily agree with you. But, AFAIK the exact point in time it becomes a wreck they must disembark and it becomes terrain, being as they are both immediate things, I look at them happening simultaneously, and therefore an allowance of placing on top could be made.
My statement is which happens first?

Gitsplitta, as far as chance of models being destroyed, there is less as far as deployment, but you have to take the S4(or S3) per model on explodes.. So either way a destroyed or wrecked result is bad.

themrsleepy wrote:The rules as far as I know do not state exactly when it changes from a model to when it becomes terrain.

You don't know very far then.

Try reading Page 67, under "Destroyed - Wrecked". Ya know, the actual rule. It makes it blindingly clear the order things happen in.

Not trying to be snarky, but it does help to read the rule before making comments.

Gwar! wrote:
Not trying to be snarky, but it does help to read the rule before making comments.

And in this case, the rules and Gwar are crystal clear.

First the passengers disembark, then they take a pinning test, then the vehicle becomes a wreck.
Of course this also requires one to read and understand the rules for 'disembark', 'pinning' and 'wreck'!

Yea it really is pretty clear. I mean I got it as soon as I actually read the rules.

Not to mention this tactic has been used in MANY tournaments across the globe. Id imagine if its been played like that everywhere, then wouldnt you know it....thats how its played.

I do stand corrected, missed a "then, " phrase under wreck. I did not notice the time reference statement upon original inspection of said rule.

Edit: Oh, and just for clarity sake, I did ASK if there was a time reference that I missed, the verbage I was responded with does seem harsh considering I was asking a question that would put a hole, admittadely, through my argument.

Well Ill apologize if I came across harsh at least. Youve got to realize though, arguing with a rule and still sound incredibly wrong, makes others get annoyed. It just happens

KingCracker wrote:Well honestly that depends on who you play. The rolla took forever, many signatures, sending GW a petition everyday for 2 months to finally say weather or not it works on vehicles, they for damn sure arnt going to say weather or not it counts as part of the hull.

Well, i think the actual deciding factor was probably them looking at the sales figures for the battlewagon upgrade sprue and realizing mabye 15 had been bought ...

Well of course, money is ALWAYS the main factor in what they do. But Im sure all the above helped in that somewhere.