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.

FlingitNow wrote:

Noone is throwing out any rules. You are invoking rules that the rule does not invoke and claiming they have to be applied.
There is no general rule on placement being movement. Or at least the dozen people in both threads have failed to provide one, as have you.

However people have shown numerous examples in the rules where it refers to models disembarking from a Vehicle destroyed (not wrecked) result or models being disembarked after a vehicle explodes result...

Disembarking is covered, your definition however reaches no resolution.

but as stated several times upon an explosion result there is nothing stating that what occurs there after is a disembark. Lets face it though, the only vehicle I can think of that would have the issue of not all the models fitting in it's footprint would be an ork battlewagon. There is absolutely nothing stating that you can not "place" models within 1" of an enemy model after the destroyed result, so what occurs if you can't fit them in the footprint would be a very slim situation.

BlueDagger wrote:
but as stated several times upon an explosion result there is nothing stating that what occurs there after is a disembark. Lets face it though, the only vehicle I can think of that would have the issue of not all the models fitting in it's footprint would be an ork battlewagon. There is absolutely nothing stating that you can not "place" models within 1" of an enemy model after the destroyed result, so what occurs if you can't fit them in the footprint would be a very slim situation.

It is a situation that can exist though, which I'm not arguing.
The fact that it is possible to have alive but unplaceable models doesn't somehow mean the RAW of explodes is invalidated, however.
It just means that the rule doesn't cover all its bases, as occurs elsewhere in the book.

FlingitNow wrote:Time wizard



Thank you.

So there we have if we accept Gorkamorka view and you can't fit all the models in the footprint of the transport you can't place them on top of each other and there is no rule governing them being destroyed (as they all relate to disembarking which you claim the squad hasn't done) so the game just stops and we all go home?

Well in that case you have three options: be a good sport and compromise, roll for it or go home. Anyway, in friendly games you should be flexible and reach a middle point (maybe i do not respect the inch and destroy all models that do not fit) or roll, in tourneys you could also ask the TO and accept the call.

I must say that two things said have made me think that maybe the models do disembark after an explosion (the note from dashofpeeper about the model being treated as disembarked and that destroying a vehicle forces you to disembark). I'm still thinking about it because i'm stubborn and because i still do not buy the wording. I'm hesitating and might get to accept this is disembark (and then accept the 1" limit).
In any case, the disembarking rules have nothing to do with destroying models. Those rules only say that in case you can´t disembark the whole unit you may attempt an emergency disembark. If you still can´t do that you do not disembark, nowhere is stated that the models are removed from play but in the case of the wreckage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote:And as TW has mentioned elsewhre:
BRB page 66, first paragraph under 'Embarking and Disembarking' last sentence says; "However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed."

So ANY "Destroyed" results in a disembark, with the two different destroyed being done differently. And now we're back to cannot disembark within an inch........................

Ok, let's say you disembark, you count as moving for shooting, but about the placement: would you allow me to move as described in the disembarking rules? do i get to put my models within 2" of the now defunct vehicle and not closer to 1" of an enemy? of course not because the rule for explosions state where can i put my models, effectively modifying the area of the disembarking rule. The new area is the footprint, no mention of keeping the inch restriction. You do not get to pick which parts of the original rule apply and which doesn't. All placement related stuff falls under the exception.

Well in that case you have three options: be a good sport and compromise, roll for it or go home. Anyway, in friendly games you should be flexible and reach a middle point (maybe i do not respect the inch and destroy all models that do not fit) or roll, in tourneys you could also ask the TO and accept the call.

You've switch from RaW to an actual game. If you are playing an actual game then you will have to use the rules of the game as written by games workshop in which case it is disembarking and any not placeable using the 1" are destroyed.

Whilst Gorkamorka can argue symantecs with the wording in an actual game the rules are pretty clear and the smallest amount of common sense is required to apply them. So in an entirely hypothetical Raw discussion Gorkamorka has a tenuous if not unconvincing argument, but in an actual game the rules are quite obvious.

I have never played it that way (with 1" restriction), nor have I seen anyone else play it that way. So don't state your opinions (which has very little evidence) as facts.

Ok, let's say you disembark, you count as moving for shooting, but about the placement: would you allow me to move as described in the disembarking rules? do i get to put my models within 2" of the now defunct vehicle and not closer to 1" of an enemy? of course not because the rule for explosions state where can i put my models, effectively modifying the area of the disembarking rule. The new area is the footprint, no mention of keeping the inch restriction. You do not get to pick which parts of the original rule apply and which doesn't. All placement related stuff falls under the exception.

You can argue it is not disembarking, but once you accept that it is the game is up. Disembarking is movement. This overrides the normal restriction on disembarking as you place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than 2" of the exits, it does not state it overrides any other laws of movement. One of the laws of movement is to not be within 1" of an enemy model...

kirsanth wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:You're making inferences, like Dash's claim, that the rules don't specifically support.

Panic wrote: this implys permission to place them any where within the boundaries of the exploded transport including within 1" of a enemy.

Indeed. Implications abound.

And O.T:
Inferences are not the same as implications. Inferences comes from reason, you deduct something from some other things. The deductions could be wrong. On the other hand, implications relate to causes and effects, there is no reasoning in them as they are consequences of something. In analyzing RAW, implications are way stronger than inferences.

I have never played it that way (with 1" restriction), nor have I seen anyone else play it that way. So don't state your opinions (which has very little evidence) as facts

It is still the rules, they are quite clear on this. I'm pretty certain even Gorkamorka would accept the rules as you'd play them are obviously the 1" restriction. Read through these posts and look at the mean and reasoning behind the rules as you would with in a legal case (rather than worry about the exact wording), use the smallest amount of common sense.

For instance the rules don't specifiy how far you have to throw a dice. If I had a dice with the 6 pointing upward in my fingers and dropped it 1mm onto the table that would technically qualify as throwing a d6, and there is no rule expressly forbidding it, because common sense should tell you that is dumb.

The rules are written by people expecting others to use common sense when applying them rather than them having to reiterate every rule over and over saying it still applies in this situation... The rulebook would be 10 times as thick and impossible to read.

FlingitNow wrote:

You can argue it is not disembarking, but once you accept that it is the game is up. Disembarking is movement. This overrides the normal restriction on disembarking as you place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than 2" of the exits, it does not state it overrides any other laws of movement. One of the laws of movement is to not be within 1" of an enemy model...

I asked you before and Im going to ask you again...have you read the topic? Or are you purposely ignoring the points that have already addressed the issues you keep bringing up.

Your first sentence is essentially "You can keep arguing against me, but once you agree with me, the game is up". Great insight...

kirsanth wrote:I am pedantic, regardless -- it has no bearing on this discussion.
Or rather, this discussion has no bearing on that part of my nature.


Editing to add:
I still have a hard time understand how it is not movement, but as I said I need to read more and do not have time for it at the moment.

It's only movement if it says that it counts as movement (or if it is the action described in the movement section of the rulebook). See the bullets in p.67 where says that units that disembark count as moving for shooting. That is an example of how it must be written in order to be (in this case, count as) movement.

FlingitNow wrote:

It is still the rules, they are quite clear on this. I'm pretty certain even Gorkamorka would accept the rules as you'd play them are obviously the 1" restriction. Read through these posts and look at the mean and reasoning behind the rules as you would with in a legal case (rather than worry about the exact wording), use the smallest amount of common sense.

For instance the rules don't specifiy how far you have to throw a dice. If I had a dice with the 6 pointing upward in my fingers and dropped it 1mm onto the table that would technically qualify as throwing a d6, and there is no rule expressly forbidding it, because common sense should tell you that is dumb.

The rules are written by people expecting others to use common sense when applying them rather than them having to reiterate every rule over and over saying it still applies in this situation... The rulebook would be 10 times as thick and impossible to read.

-It is not the rules, it is not clear or else there wouldnt be a 4 page topic would there?
-You are assuming Gork would accept this, just like youre assuming it is disembarking when in both cases you have no evidence.
-Please do not try to argue common sense with me. I will take common sense over RAW anyday, but it has no presence here. Common sense would tell me that the unit could use all available space and that there wasnt a magical barrier preventing me from being within it. Coincidentally enough, thats exactly how the rules tell you to do it.

I asked you before and Im going to ask you again...have you read the topic? Or are you purposely ignoring the points that have already addressed the issues you keep bringing up.

Your first sentence is essentially "You can keep arguing against me, but once you agree with me, the game is up". Great insight...

Did you read the post I replied to? Yes I've read the topic have you?

The post I replied to said he accepted that the models were disembarking, but that he was not convinced the 1" restriction would then apply.

I'm pretty certain even you would agree if the models are disembarking the 1" restriction applies? I know you disagree that they are disembarking, but if it did state categorically in the rules that they were disembarking you'd accept the 1" rule right?

time wizard wrote:

As for ramming, if the rammed vehicle is not removed, the ramming vehicle halts. And again ramming is a special kind of tank shock so it is a special type of assault a vehicle can make against another vehicle. This assault move is, again, an exception to the 1" rule because it is an attack that just happens to take place in the Movement phase.

If I missed the parts of the rule you were referring to, please point them out to me.

WOW! big words here! please let's void the "ram is a form of tank shock" argument out of this if we want to keep the discusion on topic. Or else will have someone saying that Time Wizard says that deff rollas work on vehicles! opps! sorry

FlingitNow wrote:
It is still the rules, they are quite clear on this. I'm pretty certain even Gorkamorka would accept the rules as you'd play them are obviously the 1" restriction. Read through these posts and look at the mean and reasoning behind the rules as you would with in a legal case (rather than worry about the exact wording), use the smallest amount of common sense.
The rules are written by people expecting others to use common sense when applying them rather than them having to reiterate every rule over and over saying it still applies in this situation... The rulebook would be 10 times as thick and impossible to read.

You can argue it is not disembarking, but once you accept that it is the game is up. Disembarking is movement. This overrides the normal restriction on disembarking as you place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than 2" of the exits, it does not state it overrides any other laws of movement. One of the laws of movement is to not be within 1" of an enemy model...

Please, don't put words in my mouth. And please, don't argue rules completely incorrectly.
Without any solid RAW arguments, which you have not provided, you cannot claim that the RAW is on your side.
Explodes does not use disembarking. Period. That's it. You CANNOT say that RAW it uses the disembarking rules, or that it was obviously intended to use disembarking, or if only it used disembarking it would work the way you want it to, or that a non-specific implication from another rule somehow explicitly changes the rule to use disembarking.
Do not argue common sense, or what the implications of the RAW would be, or how you would play it as though that was RAW.

Stop repeating arguments with no basis, and that myself and others have poked gigantic holes in, as though it will somehow make them right. You are wrong, unless you have actual written proof from the rulebook that states specifically that you are right in this case, which you stoically refuse to provide.

Me and other posters have outlined the RAW and what it says. Without general or specific rules which ovveride or add to the language in the explodes result, which noone has provided, that is how the RAW works. I'm done with this thread, and this argument, as people on the other side are simply continually restating opinions or assumptions as though they are rules and refuse to provide the specific rule references that would be needed to change what the RAW instruction in explodes says to do and add a 1" restriction.

You can place the embarked models within 1" of enemy models. That's what the rule allows.
Enjoy playing by house rules, I suppose.

-It is not the rules, it is not clear or else there wouldnt be a 4 page topic would there?
-You are assuming Gork would accept this, just like youre assuming it is disembarking when in both cases you have no evidence.
-Please do not try to argue common sense with me. I will take common sense over RAW anyday, but it has no presence here. Common sense would tell me that the unit could use all available space and that there wasnt a magical barrier preventing me from being within it. Coincidentally enough, thats exactly how the rules tell you to do it.

It is the rules just some people don't want it to be the rules so are clutching at symantec straws...

I'm happy for Gorkamorka to say either way I'm sure he'll be back on here soon and we can ask him.

It refers to models being forced to disembark from vehicle destroyed results (not just vehicle wrecked), it refers to disembarked models in the case of vehicle explodes. I don't know how it can be more clear?

You say common sense and there shouldn't be a barrier, but what about models spread around the circumferance of the vehicle at 2" gaps 3" deep. Hence in a wrecked result the unit would be destroyed yet there is space for them between the models just not whilst keeping to the 1" rule. The precedent for how the rules work is right there, yet you claim that for the vehicle explodes result the rules work radically different to every other case in the game and claim that is common sense?

A rule that would mean that the enemy unit would not be able to move away and could only move to assault you (and the same restriction would apply to you), yet you are not locked in combat or you'd have to shoot men away at each other to remove those within 1" to allow movement again. You claim the rule gives a situation where Space Marines using older models are very likley to find themselves at an impass with no resolution ditto Orks in their trucks. You claim this is how the rule is supposed to work?

FlingitNow wrote:
You've switch from RaW to an actual game. If you are playing an actual game then you will have to use the rules of the game as written by games workshop in which case it is disembarking and any not placeable using the 1" are destroyed.

Are you aware that RAW means "the rules of the game as written by games workshop"? and all that we are discussing is exactly how must/should be the rules used?

Whilst Gorkamorka can argue symantecs with the wording in an actual game the rules are pretty clear and the smallest amount of common sense is required to apply them. So in an entirely hypothetical Raw discussion Gorkamorka has a tenuous if not unconvincing argument, but in an actual game the rules are quite obvious.

RAW discussions do happen in real games and the rules you see as obvious are not so, otherwise this topic would consist of oly two posts: one question and one answer to which we all agree.

Please, don't put words in my mouth. And please, don't argue rules completely incorrectly.
Without any solid RAW arguments, which you have not provided, you cannot claim that the RAW is on your side.
Explodes does not use disembarking. Period. That's it. You CANNOT say that RAW it uses the disembarking rules, or that it was obviously intended to use disembarking, or if only it used disembarking it would work the way you want it to, or that a non-specific implication from another rule somehow explicitly changes the rule to use disembarking.
Do not argue common sense, do not argue how you would play it as though that was RAW.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth the post was put on here for you to read and respond. So are you really telling me in an actual game you'd try to play it the way you claim is RaW?

You say that Vehicle explodes doesn't use the disembark rules period (I think you mean full stop). However it doesn't state anywhere that is doesn't use these rules and the models are going from embarked to disembarked (you'd accept that right?). Granted neither does it state categorically that it does use the disembarking rules in a situation where models are going from embarked to disembarked but it does imply it at several junctures. Whilst the rules for disembarking would clear up the huge holes that not using those rules create?

So do you accept:

1) The models in the vehicle are embarked before the explosion?

2) The models are disembarked after the explosion?

3) The disembarking rules are quite clear (whether or not they apply to this situation)?

4) Not using the disembarking rules breaks for lots of situations for the rules going forward (i.e. not moving within 1" for the follwoing turn, what happnes when you can't fit all the models in the footprint).

Can you give me 4 yes or no please?

FlingitNow wrote:

For instance the rules don't specifiy how far you have to throw a dice. If I had a dice with the 6 pointing upward in my fingers and dropped it 1mm onto the table that would technically qualify as throwing a d6, and there is no rule expressly forbidding it, because common sense should tell you that is dumb.

In fact you do not throw dice, you have to ROLL them (p.2 of the rulebook)... but i digress

@agalavis-The thread you quoted from me was a reply I made to Fenris-77 a page ago. Fenris said that in the tank shock and ram rules there were sections that stated models could remain within 1" of enemy models. I asked where that rule was located. I wasn't trying to bring another topic into discussion. The current one is confused enough.

@Gorkamorka -I agree with you that the rules for wrecked-explodes don't specifically say that you cannot place the transported models within 1" of an enemy unit, but the counter to this is those same rules don't specifically say you can.

Are you aware that RAW means "the rules of the game as written by games workshop"? and all that we are discussing is exactly how must/should be the rules used?

I disagree RaW is about the exact words of the text. The rules as written by Games workshop refers to the rules of the games as designed by Games Workshop that they have then transfered onto text as best they can expecting people to use common sense. RaW is not about common sense it is about reading the rules as if you are a computer and applying them as directly and obtusely as possible.

For instance if something gives a vehicle a cover save the vehicle can only use that against wounding hits which of course there will never be. Only if the vehicle is obscured can it then take cover saves from penetrating or glancing hits. It doesn't take a genius to work out that that is stupid and clearly never GWs intention. However in real game terms you can just assume that anything that doesn't specifically bestow obscured to a vehicle is just not meant to give vehicles a cover save (like for instance the SW power that refers to 5+ cover saves for squads which is never a defined term in itself anyway).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In fact you do not throw dice, you have to ROLL them (p.2 of the rulebook)... but i digress

You get my point though it doesn't specify how to roll dice. I could put the dice with a 6 on the side and roll the 6 onto the top with my hand and the dice has been "rolled". Pretty certain no one would let the 6 stand though (unless it was an LD test ).

All I'm saying is that the rules expect a certain level of common sense and due to their complexity in order to play the game at all you have to apply it. The common sense in this case is pretty obvious.

FlingitNow wrote:

Ok, let's say you disembark, you count as moving for shooting, but about the placement: would you allow me to move as described in the disembarking rules? do i get to put my models within 2" of the now defunct vehicle and not closer to 1" of an enemy? of course not because the rule for explosions state where can i put my models, effectively modifying the area of the disembarking rule. The new area is the footprint, no mention of keeping the inch restriction. You do not get to pick which parts of the original rule apply and which doesn't. All placement related stuff falls under the exception.

You can argue it is not disembarking, but once you accept that it is the game is up. Disembarking is movement. This overrides the normal restriction on disembarking as you place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than 2" of the exits, it does not state it overrides any other laws of movement. One of the laws of movement is to not be within 1" of an enemy model...

Please read again what you quoted from my post. I say exactly why even if you disembark after the explosion you do not have to mind the gap. I will say it again, slowly this time because my english might lack some polish:
-The explosion rule would contain an exception regarding the model's placement.
-The 1" gap is a rule that affect the model's placement while disembarking.
-ALL rules regarding model placement during a disembark after an explosion would be replaced by the exception.
-Hence, you can place your models in the area stated in the exception which is the vehicle footprint.

The destruction of models is another topic, and only applies in the case of a "Destroyed - Wreckage" result. So that part has NOTHING to do with the explosion result.

So do you accept:

1) The models in the vehicle are embarked before the explosion?

2) The models are disembarked after the explosion?

3) The disembarking rules are quite clear (whether or not they apply to this situation)?

4) Not using the disembarking rules breaks for lots of situations for the rules going forward (i.e. not moving within 1" for the follwoing turn, what happnes when you can't fit all the models in the footprint).

Can you give me 4 yes or no please?

This is not for me, but i have to say that those are three facts and an opinion, so you could get a yes, yes yes, no.

time wizard wrote: The tank shock rule allows the tank to make a special kind of attack. Think of it as an assault move by the tank, and assaulting models are allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model. But if the models the tank 'assaults' would end up under the tank, they are moved out of the way but must still leave 1" between themselves and the vehicle. The !' distance must still be maintained.

As for ramming, if the rammed vehicle is not removed, the ramming vehicle halts. And again ramming is a special kind of tank shock so it is a special type of assault a vehicle can make against another vehicle. This assault move is, again, an exception to the 1" rule because it is an attack that just happens to take place in the Movement phase.

If I missed the parts of the rule you were referring to, please point them out to me.

I'm not sure you understand completely why I brought this up, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The main reason, which is fully supported even by the diagrams that accompany the rules on the quoted pages, is that there's more than one rule in the book that allows a model to be moved to withint an inch of another model (and remain there). The phrase you're looking for btw is "comes into contact" (right hand column at the top of page 69). Neither that nor the accompanying diagram contain even the slightest hint that the 1" plays any role.

It's not an assault either, no matter how many times you put 'assault' in quotation marks, not in any way the 40K rules recognize. Ramming might be fairly categorized as a special attack (in some sort of general sense), but that doesn't make it a special kind of assault, which is what you'd need it to be if you wanted the 1" to stand as monolithically as people here have suggested it does. I understand why you want liken it to assault, and I might even agree with you in a broad sort of way, but that doesn't change anything about the RAW. A major prop for the positions of a couple of guys in this thread rests on the 1" rule and their contention that there aren't any exceptions to it except for the assault rules. I'm simply pointing out that that isn't the case.

The most damning part is the rules for ramming a walker, which, should the walker fail or not attempt a DoG atack, leave the vehicle in base to base with the Walker without being 'in assault'. That and the fact that there are no explicit or implicit instructions in the rules for ramming that require you to move either model 'back' to being an inch away after the action has been resolved.

This isn't, btw, supposed to be an argument that proves anything as far as the OP goes. Just that there's precedent for situations in the rules where a model can be within 1" of an enemy model and not in assault, even when an assault is possible in normal cirumstances (vehicle ramming walker).

time wizard wrote:
@Gorkamorka -I agree with you that the rules for wrecked-explodes don't specifically say that you cannot place the transported models within 1" of an enemy unit, but the counter to this is those same rules don't specifically say you can.

Just one more teensy post, since this is also a repeated argument and is also completely flawed and not how rules are argued.

The rule gives me permission to place the units where the transport was, with no listed caveats or restrictions involving enemy models and without invoking any of the 1" restrictions elsewhere in the rulebook.

The rule does not have to give me specific permission to do something that the general action allows me to do and I am not disallowed from doing by any rules.
You could equally argue that it does not give me explicit permission to place them there on teusdays, or within a mile of a tree... but without a relevant restriction then that isn't required at all.

Without a restriction, placing the units within 1" of an enemy model within the previous transport footprint is completely allowed by the RAW of the explodes result without a specific allowance.

agalavis

I say exactly why even if you disembark after the explosion you do not have to mind the gap. I will say it again, slowly this time because my english might lack some polish:

so at this point we are assuming the rules for disembarking are in effect in which case it is movement and all the normal movement restriction apply. Your English is miles better than my Spanish To be honest your English miles better than most English peoples English (probably mine included ).

-The explosion rule would contain an exception regarding the model's placement.

Yes it says they are place in the footprint of the vehicle rather than within 2" of exits as usual.

-The 1" gap is a rule that affect the model's placement while disembarking.

Correct

-ALL rules regarding model placement during a disembark after an explosion would be replaced by the exception.

Wrong only those that are specifically stated to be changed. Otherwise for instance you could place models on top of each other or at each point they'd have to rewrite the entire rule book cover all the rules that still stand.

-Hence, you can place your models in the area stated in the exception which is the vehicle footprint.

Yes but still abbiding by normal movement rules, for instance not placing models on top of each other and not placing models within 1" of the enemy.

The destruction of models is another topic, and only applies in the case of a "Destroyed - Wreckage" result. So that part has NOTHING to do with the explosion result.

Unless you are assuming the vehicle disembarking rules are working the same for both results. Taking away that ability you are at an impass the minute the models in a vehicle cannot fit in its footprint. You'd be lucky to get more that 6 Spacemarines in the footprint of the old 2nd Ed Rhino for instance. At that point your rules break down.

Which is what I was talking about on my 4th point, but thank you for the yeses and the no .

Gorkamorka has already conceded his interpretation breaks down at this point too.

My interpretation only asks for you to assume that you use the disembarking rules when a model is going from embarked to disembarked. To assume that this is implied by the rules refering to models being disembarked after a vehicle explodes results and that nodels can be forcibly disembarked by a vehicle destroyed result (if it was just a wrecked result they'd have surely just said wrecked).

The other interpretation asks you to ignore these and for the vehicle explodes result to be totally different from every similar situation in the rules and that you are at an impass the minute you have tioo many models to fit in the footprint.

FlingitNow wrote:
3) The disembarking rules are quite clear (whether or not they apply to this situation)?

4) Not using the disembarking rules breaks for lots of situations for the rules going forward (i.e. not moving within 1" for the follwoing turn, what happnes when you can't fit all the models in the footprint).

You can't directly use the disembark rules for the explosion result. The disembark rules used for the Vehicle Destroyed - wrecked result (and detailed on the rest of pg 67) require there to be a vehicle, with access points, to disembark from. That's why the wrecked rule on pg67 has you do the disembark and take a pin test first, and only after that replace the vehicle with a wreck. The explosion result removes the vehicle before the pin test and before placing any models on the board. It might seem niggly, but the specific rules for disembarking that you want to apply here absolutely require a vehicle at the beginning of the rules sequence, and the explosion result doesn't give you that.

Disembark, as the rule is detailed on page 67, only provides two options. In both cases a vehicle must be present, and disembarking models must be placed either within 2" of one of that vehicle's access point, or within 2" of the vehicle hull in the case of emergency disembarkation. Resolving a Destroyed - explodes! result can satisfiy none of those criteria, so I fail to see why anyone would argue that those rules are being used.

Fenris 77 in the case of a vehicle ramming a walker as they are in base to base contact in the assault phase is the walker allowed to attack the vehicle? This is a question I'm not arguing either way. The reason I ask is if you assault a vehicle you are not locked in combat with it and you don;t destroy it. If it remains stationary (or just pivots on the spot) as you remain in base to base contact you are allowed to attack again in its turn. The implication being if you are in base to base contact with a vehicle you are allowed to attack it. Because in this instance they are not locked in combat with the vehicle nor have they launched an assault but can attacked based purely on being in base to base contact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disembark, as the rule is detailed on page 67, only provides two options. In both cases a vehicle must be present, and disembarking models must be placed either within 2" of one of that vehicle's access point, or within 2" of the vehicle hull in the case of emergency disembarkation. Resolving a Destroyed - explodes! result can satisfiy none of those criteria, so I fail to see why anyone would argue that those rules are being used.

I can see where you are coming from. However as you state the disembarking rules require you to disembark with 2" of the exits (or hull in emergeancy), fortunately the rules tell you what to do in the case where there is no vehicle to disembark from you place your models (presumably according to all the normal rules as it doesn't state differently) in the footprint of the model. Then take the pinning check. Hence it tells you specifically what changes need to be made to the disembarking rules given the new situation as you can't take the pinning check until the models are placed and in this instance you can't place the models until the vehicle is removed. Hence why the rules cover exactly what to change in this instance.

FlingitNow wrote: Fenris 77 in the case of a vehicle ramming a walker as they are in base to base contact in the assault phase is the walker allowed to attack the vehicle? This is a question I'm not arguing either way. The reason I ask is if you assault a vehicle you are not locked in combat with it and you don;t destroy it. If it remains stationary (or just pivots on the spot) as you remain in base to base contact you are allowed to attack again in its turn. The implication being if you are in base to base contact with a vehicle you are allowed to attack it. Because in this instance they are not locked in combat with the vehicle nor have they launched an assault but can attacked based purely on being in base to base contact.

I'd assume not actually. That rule requires the vehicle to have been assaulted in the first place, which isn't the case here. Since you can't fulfill any of the listed conditions (Vehicle was assaulted, survived, and hasn't moved) I don't see how we can just skip past that to use the part of the rule you want to apply. It's a case of in condition X action Y is permitted, and we don't have condition X.

FlingitNow wrote:
I can see where you are coming from. However as you state the disembarking rules require you to disembark with 2" of the exits (or hull in emergeancy), fortunately the rules tell you what to do in the case where there is no vehicle to disembark from you place your models (presumably according to all the normal rules as it doesn't state differently) in the footprint of the model. Then take the pinning check. Hence it tells you specifically what changes need to be made to the disembarking rules given the new situation as you can't take the pinning check until the models are placed and in this instance you can't place the models until the vehicle is removed. Hence why the rules cover exactly what to change in this instance.

Hah. Except that's not at all what the rules say. At least not the rules for disembarking. The rules for disembarking only list the conditions I mentioned. The rule in the explodes! entry is just that - rules for what to do when the vehicle is affected by an explodes result. People point to the use of the word 'disembarked' in the note and from there want to tie back into the actual disembarking rules, which includes the stipulation that models may not be placed within 1" of the enemy. The problem with that is that you cannot apply the disembark rules as a whole, and the explodes! rule doesn't reference the disembark rule at all (while the wrecked rule does).

If the placement detailed in the explodes! result referenced mechanics detailed in the disembark rules you'd be correct, and at that point the vehicle-sized template would just be a variation on within 2" of access point or hull. That placement isn't a part of the disembark rules though, so any attempt to apply any part of those rules to the mechanics of the explodes! reslt is wishful thinking. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to it that way (cause it certainly does). I am saying that the RAW in no way fully supports you position though. Not only are the explodes! rules not in the correct place to make you argument fly, but the rules in the explodes! result don't even follow the same pattern as the rules for disembarking, which deep sixes a lot of the credibility in the argument from similarity.

You need to somehow get around the fact that your position requires you to cherry pick the bits of rules that suit your desired result but without reference to how appropriate that cherry picking is in the context of the entire rule in question.

I'd assume not actually. That rule requires the vehicle to have been assaulted in the first place, which isn't the case here. Since you can't fulfill any of the listed conditions (Vehicle was assaulted, survived, and hasn't moved) I don't see how we can just skip past that to use the part of the rule you want to apply. It's a case of in condition X action Y is permitted, and we don't have condition X.

I thought that would be the case just wanted to check, cheers

Hah. Except that's not at all what the rules say. At least not the rules for disembarking. The rules for disembarking only list the conditions I mentioned. The rule in the explodes! entry is just that - rules for what to do when the vehicle is affected by an explodes result. People point to the use of the word 'disembarked' in the note and from there want to tie back into the actual disembarking rules, which includes the stipulation that models may not be placed within 1" of the enemy. The problem with that is that you cannot apply the disembark rules as a whole, and the explodes! rule doesn't reference the disembark rule at all (while the wrecked rule does).

If the placement detailed in the explodes! result referenced mechanics detailed in the disembark rules you'd be correct, and at that point the vehicle-sized template would just be a variation on within 2" of access point or hull. That placement isn't a part of the disembark rules though, so any attempt to apply any part of those rules to the mechanics of the explodes! reslt is wishful thinking. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to it that way (cause it certainly does). I am saying that the RAW in no way fully supports you position though. Not only are the explodes! rules not in the correct place to make you argument fly, but the rules in the explodes! result don't even follow the same pattern as the rules for disembarking, which deep sixes a lot of the credibility in the argument from similarity.

You need to somehow get around the fact that your position requires you to cherry pick the bits of rules that suit your desired result but without reference to how appropriate that cherry picking is in the context of the entire rule in question.

The rules for disembarking state if you can't emergeancy disembark you can't disembark. The rules for wrecked change this so they work forth egiven situation (in that you have to disembark). I'm not cherry picking at all I'm apply all the rules as they stand except for the exceptions stated in the rules.

For instance would you agree I was right by RaW if the Paragraph read:

The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP- hits equal to the number of models embarked. The surviving passengers disembark and are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a pinning test.

I've highlight the 2 words added. I'd also like to point out that this is no longer about RaW as the discussion as moved onto what are the rules of the game (which are different to RaW, which is what are the rules of the game would be if you read then word by word and don't apply any common sense and it ceases to be a playable game as i can "roll" a 6 whenever I want without breaking RaW). You see it seems quite obvious (well to someone of my intellegence anyway) from all the references and how that rules work that in any case where a model is going from embarked to disembarked you are assumed to be using the disembarking rules.

For instance the Wrecked rules say you disembark but they don't specify you have to do this following the disembarking rules stated elsewhere. The use of the word disembark is there purely because from an English point of view it makes sense as the vehicle is still there. It seems obvious GW assume you are going to continue using the disembarking rules for Vehicle explodes as you are again disembarking.

FlingitNow wrote:For instance the Wrecked rules say you disembark but they don't specify you have to do this following the disembarking rules stated elsewhere. The use of the word disembark is there purely because from an English point of view it makes sense as the vehicle is still there. It seems obvious GW assume you are going to continue using the disembarking rules for Vehicle explodes as you are again disembarking.

Actually - it does. The wrecked result says that the unit must immeadiately disembark and if they are unable to disembark they are destroyed. This is a very clear reference to the disembarking rules.

The explodes result states that the vehicle is removed, the unit is to resolve the relavent wounds, and remaining models are to be placed where the vehicle used to be. They then take a pinning test. No mention of disembarking at all. In fact it specifically says to "place the models where the vehicle used to be" - not to "disembark" them. There is nothing left to disembark from in fact. All previous points before the explode rule specifically mention disembarking - this one does not.

As a result - in their next turn - a unit completely surrounded would be forced to assault (as long as they are not pinned, in which case they do nothing).

First post w00t
Edit: fixed my shoddy quoting.

Draw the outline of a rhino on a piece of paper and try to fit 10 models inside. You can't do it. The rhino is roughly 2" wide and 3" long so at most you could possibly fit 6 Space Marines inside. Now if the three Marines facing the side of the rhino that was assaulted are removed because obviously they'll be within 1" of an enemy unit then at best you are left with three Space Marines.

If it were me and I was playing in a tournament I would allow my opponent to place models outside of the outline left by the exploded transport as long as they are within 2" of the outline and at least 1" away from my unit(s) that assaulted the rhino. Sure my way is not RAW but it is sporting and I think something should be said for that.

G