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.

Why "give up the good fight?"

These threads usually start as such:

I represent a rule, and the situations in which it does not cooperate with how many players actually play the game.

A bunch of people say "oh but the rules say this"

I say "sorry, you're wrong, the rules say what I originally posted."

So far Yakface has brought up a good point, but one which I don't think is 100% concrete. The rules imply that the disembarking may be movement. They do not explicitly say "this follows all the same rules as movement."

Eventually we get past all that to have an actual discussion about how people actually play the game.

Clthomps wrote:Willy, do you not understand the rules regarding minimum distance from enemy models?


You have to stay a least 1 " away unless you are assaulting.


So that only gives a .4 MM area to deploy. Hense they are destroyed.

Exactly. This is a time honored tactic against guard in chimeras and the occasional rhino.

Frazzled wrote:

Clthomps wrote:Willy, do you not understand the rules regarding minimum distance from enemy models?


You have to stay a least 1 " away unless you are assaulting.


So that only gives a .4 MM area to deploy. Hense they are destroyed.

Exactly. This is a time honored tactic against guard in chimeras and the occasional rhino.

Read the whole thread, please. Clthomps is wrong because of math.

Night Lords wrote:To be honest, the strategy to completely surround a vehicle doesnt seem like one GW thought of in the first place. They talk as if this situation would be used if youre next to impassable terrain or if a few units were passing by and you simply couldnt get all your models out.

Otherwise they would have simply said "if all the hatches are occupied by enemy models, the model inside is destroyed".

respectfully, its a tactic thats been done since at least 3rd edition, when it was done to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

willydstyle wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Clthomps wrote:Willy, do you not understand the rules regarding minimum distance from enemy models?


You have to stay a least 1 " away unless you are assaulting.


So that only gives a .4 MM area to deploy. Hense they are destroyed.

Exactly. This is a time honored tactic against guard in chimeras and the occasional rhino.

Read the whole thread, please. Clthomps is wrong because of math.

Sorry, you're arguing forced deployment is not movement. I don't hold to that, as I cannot think of an instance where movement doesn't count as some form of movement. Therefore you can move through the opposing mini's 1in dead zone, therefore the secondary 2in argument is irrelevant.

If the model has to be within 2", could you have a really long tentacle that was within 2" but have the base outside of 2", maybe comfortably 10" away? I'm curious if they define model as it's base, and I dun have the rules with me here at work.

Because the rules for the disembarking don't say that you move the models 2" from the hatch, they say to "deploy" 2" from the hatch, or in the case of an emergency disembark, anywhere within 2" of the hull, as shown on the diagram that shows that "within" also includes having the base merely touching the 2" zone.

The difficulty of course is that I don't subscribe to your theory that deployment in this instance is not a form of movement. I've not seen the counterargument having weight sufficient to overcome Yakface's analysis. It further contravenes common practice through several editions wherein blocked hatches where an effective means of blocking this movement. The weight of the evidence is upon your side to prove the case.

(edited for spelling)

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If the model has to be within 2", could you have a really long tentacle that was within 2" but have the base outside of 2", maybe comfortably 10" away?

No. All measurement to and from a model uses its base. Page 3: "Measuring Distances"

Drunkspleen wrote:I wonder, out of interest, do you apply the same stance to infiltrating melee units (if they are out of line of sight they have to be just over 12" away) would they be allowed to assault? Just curious, not trying to say something about you.

Here's the approach that's been used by the people I've regularly gamed with over the last 15 years or so:
- Set up following all the stated rules.
- Make an effort to measure movement reasonably accurately.
- Don't sweat the small stuff.

If a model winds up a millimeter out of assault range, we would generally allow the assault. Exactly how close is close enough would depend on the specific situation, (and quite possibly on whether it's funnier at the time to not allow it).

But having said that, the guys I generally game with, if told to deploy 'more than 12" away' from something, wouldn't be trying to deploy 12.0001" away to squeeze in an assault. There would usually be at least a half inch or more, and knowing that you're out of first-turn assault range, we wouldn't be trying to assault that turn in the first place.

They're dead. The whole argument hinges on "deploy" versus "move".

If deploying from a transport were movement, it would say to "move the models 2" from the access point." Which it does not say, and in fact if that were the intention of the disembarking rules, then the example picture shown would not be possible, as all of the bases would have to be completely within the 2" "bubble."

The one line that says "may move no further that turn" is the only line that even implies that disembarking is movement. The actual rule for disembarking simply says you "deploy" the models.

willydstyle wrote:If deploying from a transport were movement, it would say to "move the models 2" from the access point." Which it does not say, and in fact if that were the intention of the disembarking rules, then the example picture shown would not be possible, as all of the bases would have to be completely within the 2" "bubble."

The one line that says "may move no further that turn" is the only line that even implies that disembarking is movement. The actual rule for disembarking simply says you "deploy" the models.

Just saying that I agree with this interpretation.

If I'm not mistaken, the only thing dictating that a DSing model shoots as though he has moved that turn is the exact same language. I'll have to look it up to verify :p

Yea, i guess theres a tiiiiiinnny margin of space you can occupy ... unless its me doing it and i pile 30 boyz 2 deep around your rhino .... what then hehe.

I think if someone was going to be dick enough to pull the surround in the first place I'd be dick enough to play it RAW, unit can emergency disembark at the edge of the disembark bubble. Maybe I'm a spoiled friendly gamer, but if you're going down those roads you really do have to be willing to walk where they take you.

willydstyle wrote:No, they'd be more than one inch from the enemy model, since a base is less than one inch wide, not more.

Yeah yeah if ALL the models that surround the vehicle are glued with their feet to the transport you can place something within 2" of the rhino also the gap if bigger than 0.8 mm since bases are round they leave places where you have more then 0.8 to work with. That is not the issue, this is:
It still doesn't allow you to move/disembark through the unit.

EDIT: opps, should have read the third page first - this was a reply to the poster at the end of the second page saying he/she/it thought the rule sucked. Back to your original programming...


Why? Because you failed at keeping your loaded transport from being surrounded and the opponent kills both units?

Heck, it was easier in previous editions because there was no "emergency disembark."

And yes, I play it as destroyed also.

further edit:

I think if someone was going to be dick enough to pull the surround in the first place I'd be dick enough to play it RAW, unit can emergency disembark at the edge of the disembark bubble. Maybe I'm a spoiled friendly gamer, but if you're going down those roads you really do have to be willing to walk where they take you.

I don't get it. Why is that a dick move? I mostly play friendly games - if I'm dumb enough to allow my transport to be surrounded, I deserve for it to get destroyed and lose the unit inside. Or do you think it's "friendly" and "fair" for say a unit of guardsmen to surround a LR loaded with termies, melta the LR and then stand there and get slaughtered by the termies the following round?

Yeah I don't see a scenario where this won't get a person labeled as TFG. Poor general skills allowed a vehicle to be completely surrounded. Instead of taking the player's punches like a good sport the player is going to try and exploit a rule to such an extent that we need to interpret the difference between deployment and movement to see whether the player can move through the enemies models. Also the player needs to measure to an absurd level to use this exploit in the first place. This would make the player pretty unpopular in my neck of the woods. I'm just saying this is a very thin arguement.

Why is surrounding a vehicle a dick move? A thirty model ork unit is going to do that alot. I don't think this is any different from a sweeping advance in the sense that the unit is defenseless and destroyed because of it.

*Update for spelling*

phillosmaster wrote:Yeah I don't see a scenario where this won't get a person labeled as TFG. Poor general skills allowed a vehicle to be completely surrounded. Instead of taking the player's punches like a good sport the player is going to try and exploit a rule to such an extent that we need to interpret the difference between deployment and movement to see whether the player can move through the enemies models. Also the player needs to measure to an absurd level to use this exploit in the first place. This would make the player pretty unpopular in my neck of the woods. I'm just saying this is a very thin arguement.

Why is surrounding a vehicle a dick move? A thirty model ork unit is going to do that alot. I don't think this is any different from a sweeping advance in the sense that the unit is defenseless and destroyed because of it.

QFT. If you managed to get yourself surrounded and wrecked take it like a man. You lost that one. Suck it up.

liquiddark wrote:I think if someone was going to be dick enough to pull the surround in the first place I'd be dick enough to play it RAW, unit can emergency disembark at the edge of the disembark bubble. Maybe I'm a spoiled friendly gamer, but if you're going down those roads you really do have to be willing to walk where they take you.

Why is that a Dick move? Its hard as heck to do. Its a time honored traditional move. Whats the problem?
Edit: er what green git said.

its defiently destroyed

I concur with Yakface.

I will agree with the OP that it could most certainly be clearer, but I feel that the wording suffices to define disembarkation as a subset of movement, to the point in which hurdling a ring of surrounding attackers seems absurd and perverse.

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:That is clearly less than 1" edge to edge though....

Well, its not easy to tell. I dont feel like converting mm to inches myself to do the math but....the bases are less than 1" wide. lets says its 0.9". If I have two inches to work with, its 2-0.9 = 1.1".

Not only that, but the bases are round, so you can easily squeeze inbetween 2 round based units.

Basic conversion is 1" = 2.54cm = 25.4mm. So the basic premise that models can be 2" or less from the hull of the vehicle, and 1" or more away from surrounding models, is correct. Assuming all the surrounding models are flush against the hull.

so you're saying that if you want to kill the unit, you need to have some models not exactly base to base with the tank

frgsinwntr wrote:so you're saying that if you want to kill the unit, you need to have some models not exactly base to base with the tank

You must have them in b-t-b if possible, but if you can pile them two deep then you can prevent it.*

*Note: I do not actually play the game this way

yakface wrote:

yakface wrote:
Page 67 of the rulebook (emphasis mine):

"If the vehicle has already moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase."


To me, the use of the term "any further" clearly indicates that disembarking is a special form of movement (as moving more would be 'further' movement). Therefore disembarking follows all the normal restrictions for movement unless specified otherwise, including the inability to move through enemy models.

So I naturally voted that the disembarking models would be destroyed in this situation.

But if you read the main rules for disembarking, it says "each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle's access points."

"Deployed" doesn't sound like "moved" to me.

As I pointed out, it says that moving the models after disembarking counts as mov[ing] them further. They are absolutely moving when being deployed, it is just a special type of movement with additional restrictions, but it is still movement.

@Augustus: good job repeating what's been said and shown to be questionable (or wrong).

Night Lords example is exactly correct as shown in the example of disembarking space marines in the rule book.

So you are saying that your disembarking models need not deploy within 2 inches of the vehicle? They may disembark a little over 2 inches as long as some part of their base is within 2 inches?

I think that arguement is dead wrong. I think the entire base of the models must stay within that 2 inch bubble of the disembarkation point, just as when deploying troops at the start of the game their entire base must be within the given distance to the board edge.

augustus5 wrote:So you are saying that your disembarking models need not deploy within 2 inches of the vehicle? They may disembark a little over 2 inches as long as some part of their base is within 2 inches?

I think that arguement is dead wrong. I think the entire base of the models must stay within that 2 inch bubble of the disembarkation point, just as when deploying troops at the start of the game their entire base must be within the given distance to the board edge.

Well, I KNOW that argument is dead right. Page 67 BRB.
You are looking for this diagram:

augustus5 wrote:So you are saying that your disembarking models need not deploy within 2 inches of the vehicle?

No, he's saying that your interpretation of what constitutes 'within' is incorrect. And already discussed earlier in the thread.

insaniak wrote:

augustus5 wrote:So you are saying that your disembarking models need not deploy within 2 inches of the vehicle?

No, he's saying that your interpretation of what constitutes 'within' is incorrect. And already discussed earlier in the thread.

Yes, reading the whole thread is full of win.