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.

A difficult question...

If a ccs from IG has 4 plasmaguns and they are embarked in a chimera, and you blow all youre plasmagunners to the death cause the gets hot! rule (and yes it happend to me) do you have to take a LD test? If yes, do you have to flee and disembark the chimera (while it is the shooting phase)

imperial commander wrote:A difficult question...

If a ccs from IG has 4 plasmaguns and they are embarked in a chimera, and you blow all youre plasmagunners to the death cause the gets hot! rule (and yes it happend to me) do you have to take a LD test? If yes, do you have to flee and disembark the chimera (while it is the shooting phase)

RAW the game implodes.
There's two ways of thinking - one, you aren't able to fall back the full distance and therefore are destroyed, and two, you perform an emergency disembark and fall back.

Rigeld2 has it correct, the rules do not cover what happens its up to you and your opponent to come to a decision on what happens, either by agreeing/dice roll/TO

In that particular scenerio I'm going to go with everyone inside the transport is dead. If 4 plasma guns go kablooey inside a small chamber and there is only one more guy in the unit left alive then (fluffwise) why not just declare him steamed to death with the rest of his mates.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:In that particular scenerio I'm going to go with everyone inside the transport is dead. If 4 plasma guns go kablooey inside a small chamber and there is only one more guy in the unit left alive then (fluffwise) why not just declare him steamed to death with the rest of his mates.

It's never a good idea to try to apply real world logic to 40k, it just doesn't work, if possible it's best to discuss the situation ahead of time with the opponent or the TO, if it's to late for that and the problem has come up talk to the TO and explain the situation, or in the absence of a TO talk with you opponent and try to come to an agreement. In cases where you know it could come up it's best to be proactive about it and solve the problem when it isn't directly affecting the potential outcome of a game as people will be more reasonable about it.

I wasn't trying to apply real world logic. I was stating what I would do in that particular situation.
"Talk to/Ask the TO" as an aswer to a rules question should be banned just like saying "apocolypse games don't deal with X situation so discuss it amongst yourselves." It's an obvious answer that doesn't answer the question.
What is needed is a definative answer from GW via eratta or FAQ. Going to a TO answers the question at that particular time at that particular event and isn't binding on any other TO or event or even the TO at the same event.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I wasn't trying to apply real world logic. I was stating what I would do in that particular situation.
"Talk to/Ask the TO" as an aswer to a rules question should be banned just like saying "apocolypse games don't deal with X situation so discuss it amongst yourselves." It's an obvious answer that doesn't answer the question.
What is needed is a definative answer from GW via eratta or FAQ. Going to a TO answers the question at that particular time at that particular event and isn't binding on any other TO or event or even the TO at the same event.

And what binding does your answer have? None. At least the TO at the event/your opponent has some bearing to the game/tournament you're about to play.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What is needed is a definative answer from GW via eratta or FAQ.

Unfortunately, with 6th ed (rumored to be) coming in the near future there will not be an errata or FAQ except for new codices as they come out. If your at a tournament all you can do in these situations is call a TO. In a friendly game you need to talk it over and probably 4+ it.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I wasn't trying to apply real world logic. I was stating what I would do in that particular situation.
"Talk to/Ask the TO" as an aswer to a rules question should be banned just like saying "apocolypse games don't deal with X situation so discuss it amongst yourselves." It's an obvious answer that doesn't answer the question.
What is needed is a definative answer from GW via eratta or FAQ. Going to a TO answers the question at that particular time at that particular event and isn't binding on any other TO or event or even the TO at the same event.

This situation has existed for three editions and has yet to be FAQ'ed. Don't expect it to be anytime soon.

INAT FAQ says

RB.66E.01 – Q: Can an embarked unit ever be forced
to fall back or become pinned while in/on a vehicle
(or building)?
A: Unless explicitly specified otherwise, no

Since the INAT FAQ is basically a list of what TOs have said or are supposed to say for consistent rulings, I'd go with that.

Unfortunately, INAT is not official per ymdc rules. However, it is a good guideline.

Reigeld- I imagine that my answer is just as binding as your opinion. That wasn't my point.
My point is that there should be an official ruling for a not uncommon occurance that has existed for quite a while. I shouldn't have to go to TO Tom this week to see what he says versus what TO Tim said at another event last week. I should be able to play a game without having to take time out to find the TO and get an answer that is good only for my one particular game (and if the situation arises in my next game what a different TO may rule).
If the rumor is correct about the next edition coming out soon then we won't see a ruling. Hopefully the situation will be addressed in the new rule set.

"Not uncommon"? Do your squads routinely lose 25% casualties while inside their transports? If so, I believe you should have a word with your local IoM Transit Safety Commission.

azazel the cat wrote:"Not uncommon"? Do your squads routinely lose 25% casualties while inside their transports? If so, I believe you should have a word with your local IoM Transit Safety Commission.

Not usually a lot to laugh about in YMDC, but that made me chuckle.

+1

But yeah, the guardsman who has seen 1/6 of his buddies blow themself up when using a plasma gun must have pissed his commander off when he was given one. They should put plastic sheets on the seats inside the chimera.

Our meta plays no effect.

cmac wrote:But yeah, the guardsman who has seen 1/6 of his buddies blow themself up when using a plasma gun must have pissed his commander off when he was given one. They should put plastic sheets on the seats inside the chimera.

It was my understanding that chimera floors have drain holes so they just hose it out after battles.



Seriously, Leo,

Leo_the_Rat wrote:My point is that there should be an official ruling for a not uncommon occurance that has existed for quite a while. ... I should be able to play a game without having to take time out to find the TO and get an answer that is good only for my one particular game (and if the situation arises in my next game what a different TO may rule).

Your point is valid and we'd *all* like GW to cover the gaps and to cease needing to consul TOs on them.

After playing this game for 7 years, I have come to accept that GW won't ever be that thorough. It took me ... 5 years. You can bang your head against the wall longer if it pleases you.