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.

Mannahnin wrote:No, they are not equivalent. You are having an English grammar issue here.

In what way are they not equivalent?

Placing the clauses in the order they appear in the text, makes one the antecedent of the other, as I noted two posts ago. You are rearranging the text in ways which are not semantically equivalent.

Mannahnin wrote:Placing the clauses in the order they appear in the text, makes one the antecedent of the other, as I noted two posts ago. You are rearranging the text in ways which are not semantically equivalent.

Actually, in all of the sentences the Antecedent and Anaphor are all the same. The addition of commas to the sentences tells you which is which.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At any rate, no one can show where this sentence says that they can no longer disembark for the entire turn. In fact, if you ignore the implication of it being for just the movement phase, the unit can never disembark after moving flat out.

When can a unit not disembark? In that movement phase in which a vehicle has moved flat out. In THAT movement phase.

If it said, "In the turn in which a vehicle moves flat out", this would be a different implication.

No, you're incorrect. As has been stated, you're having a grammar issue.

The phrase "that movement phase" is attached to "the vehicle moved Flat Out". It is NOT attached to "passengers may not disembark", in any way.

Again, assuming that is the case (which it is not), where does it say, specifically, how long the effect lasts? Because if you don't think it's the movement phase, why can you ever disembark again?

Rephistorch wrote:Again, assuming that is the case (which it is not), where does it say, specifically, how long the effect lasts? Because if you don't think it's the movement phase, why can you ever disembark again?

Because it says "that" Movement phase. If another Movement phase has begun in between the time when you move flat-out and the time you want to disembark, then "that" Movement phase is no longer relevant, because you're in a different turn, with a different Movement phase.

It says specifically how long the effect lasts right here.

BGB page 70 wrote:Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat-out in that movement phase.

There is no limiter in that sentence, whatsoever, except the phrase "that movement phase". That sentence, therefore, tells us that the restriction applies until "that movement phase" is no longer the Movement phase in which the vehicle moved flat-out; which doesn't occur until a NEW Movement phase begins, ie the beginning of the next turn.

Wow, you are SO close to having it right. You even brought up some of my own arguments that I used a few posts ago. If this doesn't work, I don't know if you'll ever agree with me.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Because it says "that" Movement phase. If another Movement phase has begun in between the time when you move flat-out and the time you want to disembark, then "that" Movement phase is no longer relevant, because you're in a different turn, with a different Movement phase.

It says specifically how long the effect lasts right here.

There is no limiter in that sentence, whatsoever, except the phrase "that movement phase". That sentence, therefore, tells us that the restriction applies until "that movement phase" is no longer the Movement phase in which the vehicle moved flat-out; which doesn't occur until a NEW Movement phase begins, ie the beginning of the next turn.

Because it says "that" movement phase. If it is a different phase (say shooting), "that" movement phase is no longer relevant.

It says specifically how long the effect lasts right here.

There is no limiter in that sentence, whatsoever, except the phrase "that movement phase". That sentence, therefore, tells us that the restriction applies until "that movement phase" is no longer the active phase. Which occurs as soon as it isn't THAT movement phase any longer.

That movement phase is only a modifier letting you know when the vehicle has to have moved flat out.

It does not disallow disembarking to only that movement phase.

That movement phase refers to the phase in which the vehicle moved flat out. Not to the period in which the unit is unable to disembark.

Why would you think that a unit which is unable to disembark in the movement phase, and is killed if forced to try, would somehow be safe if shot down in that same turn?

Mannahnin wrote:Why would you think that a unit which is unable to disembark in the movement phase, and is killed if forced to try disembarking in that movement phase, would somehow be safe if shot down in that same turn?

Fixed that for you.

The reason? It's no longer the movement phase.

Again, I pose the question, where does it tell you, specifically, that it applies to your whole turn, and not just to the movement phase? DeathReaper, and you have repeatedly failed to provide an exact, specific quote from the BRB or FAQ to prove your point.

If GW agreed with you, they would not have changed the FAQ to what it is now, and they would have left the issue alone.

My questions for the people who say you can't disembark in the shooting phase are:

1) How long does the restriction last on not being able to disembark?

2) Why?

Rephistorch wrote: DeathReaper, and you have repeatedly failed to provide an exact, specific quote from the BRB or FAQ to prove your point.

I have provided the BRB quote, but I will do it again.

Page 70 in the BRB under 'Fast Transport Vehicles'

"Passengers may not embark or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (Or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase."

This sentence is a simple If/Then statement.

It gives us the rule: Passengers may not embark or disembark

adds a clause to that rule: from a fast vehicle

gives us condition about the rule: if it (This refers to the aforementioned fast vehicle) has moved (Or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase.

In that movement phase refers to "If aforementioned fast vehicle has moved flat out"

The above is the correct English reading of the aforementioned sentence.

Unit1126PLL wrote:My questions for the people who say you can't disembark in the shooting phase are:

1) How long does the restriction last on not being able to disembark?

2) Why?

1) Until the next movement phase.

2) Because they give a restriction and tell you a condition the restriction being: Passengers may not disembark. It lasts until the next movement phase because of the clause: if it has moved flat out in that movement phase. So you have to check if the vehicle has moved flat out in that movement phase, which can only be referring to the current player turn.

Deathreaper: So where in the sentence you just quoted does it say that the effect of not being able to disembark ends at the end of your player turn? Can we not assume that since the enemy movement phase that follows your player turn does not permit you to move the vehicle, so in its movement phase it has still moved flat out, that in the subsequent enemy movement/shooting/assault phase it would still be considered to have moved flat out, therefore the passengers could still not disembark? By your rational (since it never specifically says that the ban on disembarking is lifted at the end of your player turn), isn't it correct that until the vehicle has another opportunity to 'not move flat out' that it is still considered to have moved flat out? And because of that then the passengers cannot disembark until they are in a vehicle that is considered to have not moved flat out?

Maybe you missed my last part of the post, because I answered the question in an edit.

Look at the last part of my last post, it breaks down why it lasts until the next movement phase.

There is a question we need to ask to see if the fast vehicle is still under restriction, that question is: has the transport in question moved flat out in that movement phase?

If yes, then: Passengers may not disembark

If no, then: Passengers may disembark

DeathReaper wrote:
2) Because they give a restriction and tell you a condition the restriction being: Passengers may not disembark. It lasts until the next movement phase because of the clause: if it has moved flat out in that movement phase. So you have to check if the vehicle has moved flat out in that movement phase, which can only be referring to the current player turn.

The bolded part there doesn't make any sense. "It lasts until the next movement phase because of the clause: it has moved flat out in that movement phase." What? "It has moved flat out in that movement phase" is not a reason "it lasts until the next movement phase."

And how do you stretch "That movement phase" out into "Current player turn" there in the underlined part?

has the transport in question moved flat out in that movement phase?

If yes, then: Passengers may not disembark

If no, then: Passengers may disembark

Simple as that, this shows it lasts til the next movement phase.

DeathReaper wrote:has the transport in question moved flat out in that movement phase?

If yes, then: Passengers may not disembark

If no, then: Passengers may disembark

Simple as that, this shows it lasts til the next movement phase.

It shows no such thing - what it shows is that passengers my not disembark in the movement phase in which the transport has moved flat out.

As previously proven, your position is incorrect.

It is a simple If then Statement.

The rule says nothing about disembarking In the movement phase.

It only mentions the fast vehicle moving in the movement phase.

As Nos said:
The clause "in that movement phase" relates to the vehicle having moved Flat Out

It is NOT the time you are restricted from disembarking.

I'm sorry Death Reaper, but you are making way too many assumptions in your version.
look at the first line of the FAQ

If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out

That describes what and when the ruling applies.
the vehicle has to have been BOTH destroyed and moved flat out in a single movement phase.
Both things have to happen for the embarked unit to be removed.
'is destroyed in a Movement phase'
and
' a Movement phase in which it has moved flat out'
This is simple grammer folks, you guys are usally better at parsing this stuff, I'm a bit disappointed.

That faq entry is irrelevant for this discussion. The vehicle was not destroyed in the movement phase. Therefore, you must ignore the answer provided since it does not reference this situation. That is in no way an allowance to state that the inverse is true. That is to say that implies is only one way. If I have 3 oranges then I have 5 apples does not grant permission to assume if I have 5 apples then I have 3 oranges. It is merely a clarification, not a statement of absolute fact.

That means you fall back to what the core rules say, which is you cannot disembark from a vehicle that has, or is going to move flat out.

Specifically, the only applicable rule is:
"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a
fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat
out in that Movement phase."

In this case the pronoun it is an obvious reference to the vehicle, so it can be reworded as such:
"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if [the fast vehicle] has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase."

This can then be further reworded to:
"If [the fast vehicle] has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase, Passengers may not embark onto or disembark [the fast vehicle]."

The only end condition given is "that movement phase" which is a reference to the last movement phase the vehicle has taken. Once the vehicle is taking a different movement phase, the above clause ceases to apply. Simple as that.

The vehicle moved flat out in that player's movement phase, you may not disembark. Wreck/Destroyed results force you to disembark with the provision of if its impossible the models are lost. QED.

edit:
Also worth pointing out that the vehicle gets its cover save solely from the fact that it moved flat out, so RAI it's obvious that it is still "moving" in his shooting phase. Just saying.

WanderingFox wrote:That faq entry is irrelevant for this discussion.

This is accurate, that FaQ does not have any bearing on the discussion we are having.

The wording of the rule makes it clear that (if it has moved) it is talking about if the Fast Vehicle has moved, and nothing else.

SeattleDV8 wrote:I'm sorry Death Reaper, but you are making way too many assumptions in your version.
look at the first line of the FAQ

If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out

That describes what and when the ruling applies.
the vehicle has to have been BOTH destroyed and moved flat out in a single movement phase.
Both things have to happen for the embarked unit to be removed.
'is destroyed in a Movement phase'
and
' a Movement phase in which it has moved flat out'
This is simple grammer folks, you guys are usally better at parsing this stuff, I'm a bit disappointed.

You cannot use the FAQ answer in this situation, because this is not the movement phase the vehicle moved flat out in

So you go back to the BRB rule, and ask "did the vehicle movement flat out in "that" movement phase?" - if the answer is yes, you still cannot disembark

When you get to the opponents turn you again can ask the question - did it move flat out in that movement phase? No. Therefore I can disembark

The FAQ answered changed because a number of people still dont seem to understand that turn == player turn, and that was causing issues (ToS had a few people getting this wrong, and this is really visible to the studio) with people not being able to disembark if their opponent blew them up.

If you parse the sentence from the BRB correctly, "that movement phase" is a restriction on the vehicle speed and when it moved, NOT on when you can disembark

The FAQ is very relevant.
It makes clear when the prohibition on disembarking (voluntary and involuntary) is and what happens when you are forced to.

This has changed, use a bit of logic.
The old FAQ that stopped disembarking ffor the turn was well written and easy to understand, ( the player turn/game turn issue aside)
Why in the world would they change it to say the same thing , only with some major assumptions and mental gymnastics to decypher?
They wouldn't, they have changed the ruling to better fit with the BRB.
The embarked unit is only removed if the vehicle has been moving flat out and is destroyed in the same movement phase.

it's not symmetric... A little bit of logic would be nice...

Logical implies: If a then b. This means that if a is true then b is true. It does not go back the other way.

Let's just abstract this to make my point clear:

FAQ question says:
If I have a bunch of planes, can they move like helicopters?

Answer: No.

Does this say anything about helicopters being able to move like planes, it only affirms the fact that planes cannot move like helicopters.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.


You are using a FAQ that answers a very specific question (it was indeed specifically changed to answer a specific question) to answer a more general question.

All that FAQ entry does is add that restriction to the rules. If it was destroyed in the movement phase then they unit is destroyed.

It was not destroyed in the movement phase, so basic logical evaluation tells us that you ignore the result condition of that clause.

Therefore, the only governing logic for this situation is the original rulings, which fairly clearly state that the unit is lost because it is unable to disembark.


So, before I leave this thread to the cyclical masses... I challenge you to provide one counter-example. Be it a rules quote (outside of the already established irreverent FAQ entry) or cited example from an official source that backs up your claim. So far as I've read in this thread, you've yet to do this, which leaves you very little to stand on in terms of rules backing...

Here's how I see this:

DR and those like-minded see the only phase referred to is "that" movement phase. They then extrapolate that for the rest of "that" turn, any attempt at disembarkation (outside of certain special rules) will result in the destruction of the unit. This means that the (admittedly rather silly) tactic of shooting your own vehicle for effect cannot be used.

I think that those in line with my thinking recognize that while "that" movement phase indeed applies to "that" turn, "that" turn will always have happened. ANY disembarkation from the vehicle will then be prohibited (again, excluding special rules), no matter which turn it is, because in "that" movement phase (let's say it was top of turn 1) will still have been "that" movement phase relative to any of the following turns or phases. This means that if the unit ever tries to disembark for the rest of the game without using special rules, it will be destroyed. While this is a valid interpretation, it is not sound (at least to me). Therefore I posit that the rule refers to "that" movement phase and only "that" movement phase, so the previous (and rather excessively strict) interpretation is eliminated.

Oh, and an example for WanderingFox:
Q: Am I able to gain the benefits of any of my opponent’s wargear or special rules, such as Teleport Homers, Chaos Icons, Tyranid Synapse, Necron Resurrection Orbs etc?
A: In most occasions this is clear, as the rules use the words ‘friendly’ or ‘own’ to indicate your units, and ‘enemy’ for the opponent’s. On the other hand, some rules clearly specify that they affect ‘friend and foe’. A few rules are, however, slightly ambiguous as they don’t clearly specify this distinction. As a general principle, we recommend that you cannot use or gain the benefits from any of the wargear or special rules of your opponent’s army, unless specifically stated in the rule itself (‘friend or foe’) or in an official FAQ.

(Not that I agree with SeattleDV8's statement. Rather, I disagree with yours that FAQ rulings cannot go from specific --> general. If that's not what you meant, I apologize for misinterpreting you.)

Not sure what that faq entry has to do with anything. It is a clarification, just as the one in question is. The difference is that the one you quote is generalized. It does not specify a specific situation.

Also, you misinterpreted the argument.

"that" movement phase is a marker stating a moment in time in which the check is referencing. That is to say it means that you may not embark or disembark on a transport that moved flat out in its last movement phase (until its next movement phase due to the phrasing of 'that').

The timing of the rule is initiated at the movement phase, yes. However, it provides no end-condition. That is to say, it always references the movement phase in which it moved flat out.

The extrapolation you reference is not an implication, it doesn't even exist.

You shoot the transport down. Did it move flat-out in that movement phase? (that being a reference to its last movement phase as described above). The answer is obviously yes. You then move on to the result clause of the condition, which clearly states you may not embark or disembark. Ergo, you may not disembark from a wreck/destroy result... therefore models lost.

Do keep in mind that 40k is a permissive ruleset, you must be given explicit permission to do something, otherwise it is assumed that you may not. That said, while wreck/destroy give you permission to disembark. They only do so 'if able' moving flat-out plainly denies any embark-disembark.

Obviously the question there becomes what is the end condition? This, I will admit, is slightly vague and could possibly be twisted around to mean a few things (as obviously seen in this thread), but for the most part one can assume due to the wording of the rules that the restriction lasts until it next moves.

That said, from a RAI stand point, how is it getting a cover save in the ENEMY'S shooting phase while simultaneously moving slow enough to allow for a disembark. That simply breaks continuity.

And with that I'm out

But that's just it, if you want to say it ends in the next movement phase, and I say it ends in this movement phase, what is the deciding factor? It seems like my opinion vs yours.

I can make the same argument you just made for my position. You see what I mean?

Except it isnt a matter of opinion; ""That" movement phase is explicit as a condition for determining if the skimmer moved flat out during the turn or not.

During turn 1, opponents turn, you have not moved flat out that movement phase, so may disembark.

You have moved flat out in A movement phase, not THAT movement phase

Why do you assume "that" refers to turn?

If you work in the us, you have to file taxes for that year.
So if you work in 2011 you file based on that year, not 2010 or 2012.

You cannot disembark if you went flat out in that movement phase.
So if you're in the assault phase of turn 3, which movement phase is "that" phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:Why do you assume "that" refers to turn?

Sentence structure.