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.

Okay so was playing a game the other day and was told y someone I had never met that salvo does not get reduced shots when ou disembark in he enemy turn, this ending up costing me my game after we 4+ed it. So I go to look it up and see the disembarking rules which say. "After disembarking, models can manifest psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn." I read that as in your subsequent Shooting phase you count as moving for that turn, the turn of the subsequent shooting phase, regardless of your movement phase. When I brought this up to my opponent he justed fcused on the "that turn" part and went circular. So great and wise Dakka I am wondering who is right?

That turn refers to the turn the "their subsequent shooting phase" takes place in not the turn that the disembarkation happened.

So yes, they should have counted as moving.

Well, it says you count as having moved that turn for their subsequent Shooting Phase.

At least that is how I read it. The comma is adding a caveat to the previous statement. I don't see it as being a qualifier for just the turn the disembark happens.

That turn is the turn they disembarked, is how I read it.

I do believe it's turn by turn. Say I make a grav devastator squad fall back from shooting and I then charge them they would only get the reduced shots on over watch because they moved earlier on the turn. If I failed my charge and they don't move during his turn they fire at full effect on his turn.

An early rule in the book points out that when they say "turn" they mean "player turn," and only when they say "game turn" do they mean an entire round.

Since it doesn't say game turn, the statement is only true during the current player turn.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
An early rule in the book points out that when they say "turn" they mean "player turn," and only when they say "game turn" do they mean an entire round.

Since it doesn't say game turn, the statement is only true during the current player turn.

Yes but is the turn mentioned referring to the turn they disembarked or the turn of the subsequent shooting phase? I read it as the subsequent shooting phase.

"Subsequent shooting phase" is pretty clear on their next shooting phase, whatever turn they happen to have their next shooting phase. In that subsequent shooting phase, they count as having moved. It seems pretty cut and dry to me, and doesn't matter whether turn refers to player turn or game turn because it's simply the next time that unit has a shooting phase, they count as having moved.

I also read it as the subsequent shooting phase's turn. It's THAT turn, which has to refer back to the shooting phase bit.

Could be justified either way. Current turn makes total sense. They're climbing out of a gutted tank. Next turn could also make sense. They spend their subsequent move getting back into coherency and general becoming stable... even if they don't really move from a game standpoint. This could justify a fluff reason why they can't shoot. In other words, RaI could go either way.

To me this interpretation is wrong. If I am forced to disembark from a destroyed vehicle in my opponents turn, am I then not allowed to move during my turn? Also, would heavy weapons be forced to snap shoot?

mhelm01 wrote:
To me this interpretation is wrong. If I am forced to disembark from a destroyed vehicle in my opponents turn, am I then not allowed to move during my turn? Also, would heavy weapons be forced to snap shoot?

You'd be allowed to move as nothing prevents it, but heavies would snap shoot.

It just occurred to me, he said he looked up the rule for Disembarking. These rules make sense from that perspective as the disembark is done in the movement phase.

Isn't there a different rule for an Emergency Disembark? I don't have the rulebook handy, can someone confirm or deny if that has a different set of wording? It might make things more clear.

Lusiphur wrote:
It just occurred to me, he said he looked up the rule for Disembarking. These rules make sense from that perspective as the disembark is done in the movement phase.

Isn't there a different rule for an Emergency Disembark? I don't have the rulebook handy, can someone confirm or deny if that has a different set of wording? It might make things more clear.

Emergency Disembarkation
“The unit cannot then perform any voluntary actions for the rest of the turn.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks. https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.l

Well, that certainly did not help make things clear like I hoped!

mhelm01 wrote:
To me this interpretation is wrong. If I am forced to disembark from a destroyed vehicle in my opponents turn, am I then not allowed to move during my turn? Also, would heavy weapons be forced to snap shoot?

It does not address the Movement Phase. Order of the statements would put "considered having moved that turn" is after the statement on manifesting Psychic Powers and Shooting. If it was in regards to actually movement, that would have been listed before the Psychic Powers.

Since we are talking about order of the list, the "considered having moved that turn" is also after the Psychic Powers and Shooting Sequence as well. This is in the normally the place that caveats are added to statements as well. And that is not considering that this would be just bad grammar for a list. As bad as GW rules are written contextually (i.e. ignoring have of their own rules existing in other areas), they do use proper grammar internally to the sentence.

Lusiphur wrote:
It just occurred to me, he said he looked up the rule for Disembarking. These rules make sense from that perspective as the disembark is done in the movement phase.

Isn't there a different rule for an Emergency Disembark? I don't have the rulebook handy, can someone confirm or deny if that has a different set of wording? It might make things more clear.

Emergency Disembark is not for leaving a Wrecked Vehicle, it is for leaving a Vehicle whose Entry Points are blocked (such as by enemy models/impassable Terrain). Disembarking from a Wrecked Vehicle is otherwise a normal Disembark (unless Entry Points are blocked, of course) with a shortened distance.

Lusiphur wrote:
It just occurred to me, he said he looked up the rule for Disembarking. These rules make sense from that perspective as the disembark is done in the movement phase.

Isn't there a different rule for an Emergency Disembark? I don't have the rulebook handy, can someone confirm or deny if that has a different set of wording? It might make things more clear.

Nothing prevents it except for, according to the logic being applied, they count as having moved. I don't think you can say they can move counting as having moved this turn.

mhelm01 wrote:

Lusiphur wrote:
It just occurred to me, he said he looked up the rule for Disembarking. These rules make sense from that perspective as the disembark is done in the movement phase.

Isn't there a different rule for an Emergency Disembark? I don't have the rulebook handy, can someone confirm or deny if that has a different set of wording? It might make things more clear.

Nothing prevents it except for, according to the logic being applied, they count as having moved. I don't think you can say they can move counting as having moved this turn.

You need to look at what they count as having moved for. It never says that they count as having moved for determining if the model can move.

 arinnoor wrote:
Okay so was playing a game the other day and was told y someone I had never met that salvo does not get reduced shots when ou disembark in he enemy turn, this ending up costing me my game after we 4+ed it. So I go to look it up and see the disembarking rules which say. "After disembarking, models can manifest psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn." I read that as in your subsequent Shooting phase you count as moving for that turn, the turn of the subsequent shooting phase, regardless of your movement phase. When I brought this up to my opponent he justed fcused on the "that turn" part and went circular. So great and wise Dakka I am wondering who is right?

I bolded the key word.

The clear intent of the rules is as follows:

Disembarking counts as a movement for all rules intents and purposes.

Thus, if he disembarks his troops 6 inches away from his rhino's (let us assume) disembark points on his turn, when it comes to his shooting phase, his models count as having moved. He can't say: "But I didn't MOVE my unit; I DISEMBARKED it!"

I don't think that this applies to disembarks made on the opponent's turn. The obvious proof of this is as follows:

If you wreck my rhino and I disembark on your turn, assuming that my unit is neither shaken nor pinned, am I able to move that unit on my turn during the movement phase?

The "counts as moved" thing clearly only applies to the player turn in which the disembark takes place.

Edit:

Note also that there's a difference between disembarking from a wreck and disembarking on your own turn. You can disembark 6 inches on your own turn, but only 3 from a wreck.

Traditio wrote:
Disembarking counts as a movement for all rules intents and purposes.

This is false. You only count as having moved for what it says you count as having moved for. For 'Disembarkation Restrictions' (pg. 81, main rulebook) that is manifesting psychic powers and either running or shooting in the subsequent Shooting phase.

Ghaz wrote:This is false. You only count as having moved for what it says you count as having moved for. For 'Disembarkation Restrictions' (pg. 81, main rulebook) that is manifesting psychic powers and either running or shooting in the subsequent Shooting phase.

What other rules intents and purposes can you think of that would actually matter when it comes to disembarking?

It doesn't matter what other intents or purposes there are, saying Disembarking counts as movement for all rules purposes is still incorrect. It only counts as movement for the purposes given.

 Ghaz wrote:
It doesn't matter what other intents or purposes there are, saying Disembarking counts as movement for all rules purposes is still incorrect. It only counts as movement for the purposes given.

If there are no other relevant rules intents and purposes, then the rules intents and purposes listed are "all rules intents and purposes."

So you either need to start listing other intents and purposes, or else, grant my claim.

Traditio wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
It doesn't matter what other intents or purposes there are, saying Disembarking counts as movement for all rules purposes is still incorrect. It only counts as movement for the purposes given.

If there are no other relevant rules intents and purposes, then the rules intents and purposes listed are "all rules intents and purposes."

So you either need to start listing other intents and purposes, or else, grant my claim.

I don't think this discussion will cause anyone to change their mind, or grant your claim. It's also not fair to say prove me wrong or I'm right. This game proves time and time again that the rules are not that binary. The best possible outcome from this post is this...

Kriswall wrote:I also read it as the subsequent shooting phase's turn. It's THAT turn, which has to refer back to the shooting phase bit.

Could be justified either way. Current turn makes total sense. They're climbing out of a gutted tank. Next turn could also make sense. They spend their subsequent move getting back into coherency and general becoming stable... even if they don't really move from a game standpoint. This could justify a fluff reason why they can't shoot. In other words, RaI could go either way.

mhelm01 wrote:I don't think this discussion will cause anyone to change their mind, or grant your claim. It's also not fair to say prove me wrong or I'm right. This game proves time and time again that the rules are not that binary. The best possible outcome from this post is this...

If the only fruits that existed were apples and oranges, and I said that I wanted my fruit salad to have apples and oranges in it, this would be basically equivalent to my saying: "I want all the fruits in my fruit salad."

Likewise, if moving or not moving only counts when it comes to shooting and psychic powers, that's "all rules intents and purposes."

That should just be obvious.

At any rate, my interpretation of the rules is this:

Yes, he was perfectly in the right, if he didn't move or disembark on his own turn, to fire a heavy weapon at full BS or a salvo at full ROF and range on his own turn. The "subsequent shooting phase" only indicates the shooting phase which occurs in the same player turn as the disembark.

Traditio wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
It doesn't matter what other intents or purposes there are, saying Disembarking counts as movement for all rules purposes is still incorrect. It only counts as movement for the purposes given.

If there are no other relevant rules intents and purposes, then the rules intents and purposes listed are "all rules intents and purposes."

So you either need to start listing other intents and purposes, or else, grant my claim.

Again, it only counts as movement for the purposes given. I'm sure someone with more time than I have right now will be along to provide an example. Regardless, if it were for 'all rules intents and purposes' then that is the wording that GW would (or should) have used.

Traditio wrote:

mhelm01 wrote:I don't think this discussion will cause anyone to change their mind, or grant your claim. It's also not fair to say prove me wrong or I'm right. This game proves time and time again that the rules are not that binary. The best possible outcome from this post is this...

If the only fruits that existed were apples and oranges, and I said that I wanted my fruit salad to have apples and oranges in it, this would be basically equivalent to my saying: "I want all the fruits in my fruit salad."

Likewise, if moving or not moving only counts when it comes to shooting and psychic powers, that's "all rules intents and purposes."

That should just be obvious.

At any rate, my interpretation of the rules is this:

Yes, he was perfectly in the right, if he didn't move or disembark on his own turn, to fire a heavy weapon at full BS or a salvo at full ROF and range on his own turn. The "subsequent shooting phase" only indicates the shooting phase which occurs in the same player turn as the disembark.

Just an FYI, if you read my previous posts I agree with you, and actually pointed out your point about movement before you did.

Ghaz wrote:Again, it only counts as movement for the purposes given. I'm sure someone with more time than I have right now will be along to provide an example. Regardless, if it were for 'all rules intents and purposes' then that is the wording that GW would (or should) have used.

I just as easily could answer you that GW only mentioned those two because no other rules intents and purposes were considered relevant. So instead of saying "for all intents and purposes,' they just named the cases where it would actually be relevant.

At any rate, do you agree with my general assessment of the application of the rule to the current case?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A further corollary to my points:

According to the rules, you may not disembark and then commit an assault in the subsequent assault phase.

However, if you wreck my rhino and force a disembark on my turn, it's within the rules for me to move, fire pistols and assault on my turn.

Traditio wrote:
At any rate, my interpretation of the rules is this:

Yes, he was perfectly in the right, if he didn't move or disembark on his own turn, to fire a heavy weapon at full BS or a salvo at full ROF and range on his own turn. The "subsequent shooting phase" only indicates the shooting phase which occurs in the same player turn as the disembark.

That would not be accurate, though:

After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn...

It is not just the "the" subsequent Shooting Phase, but "their" subsequent Shooting Phase. Who is the "they"? The only possibility is the "models" who just finished disembarking. It is the only "they" that could be possibly be applying to this situation. No mention that "they" could possibly be the ones who forced the disembark.

Since "they" could not be the ones forcing the disembark, it obviously could not be the hitter's turn that it counts as moving in.

So, the only sequence could possibly be:
1) Enemy turn: player hits Transport and Wrecks it, forcing the unit to Disembark. - Disembarking models have not reached their Shooting Phase.
2) Disembarked models go through their Movement Phase.
3) Disembarked models go through their Psychic Phase, counting as having moved this turn.
4) Disembarked models go through their Shooting Phase, counting as having moved this turn.

The others interpretation relies on lists being out of proper linguistic order or bad grammar, or just ignoring the context of the sentence.

Charistoph wrote:

After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn...

1. The rule cited presupposes that you've disembarked on your own movement phase.

2. The word "that" must be emphasized.

3. I could argue back that the "subsequent shooting phase" bit applies to overwatch on the opponent's turn if a wreck forces a disembark.

It is not just the "the" subsequent Shooting Phase, but "their" subsequent Shooting Phase. Who is the "they"? The only possibility is the "models" who just finished disembarking. It is the only "they" that could be possibly be applying to this situation. No mention that "they" could possibly be the ones who forced the disembark.

The referent of "that" turn is obviously the one on which the disembark occurred.

As always, when interpreting the rules, apply common sense.

Disembarking counts as a movement. Therefore, on the turn in which it occurs, the disembarking unit counts as moved.

So, if the OP were to have assaulted that unit, then that unit would only fire at half range/RoF.

So, the only sequence could possibly be:
1) Enemy turn: player hits Transport and Wrecks it, forcing the unit to Disembark. - Disembarking models have not reached their Shooting Phase.
2) Disembarked models go through their Movement Phase.
3) Disembarked models go through their Psychic Phase, counting as having moved this turn.
4) Disembarked models go through their Shooting Phase, counting as having moved this turn.

Again, this is an over-literal interpretation which fails to take the disembark rule in its proper context. The assumption is that you are disembarking on your own turn. That's why a different set of rules are given later on for forcing a disembark by wrecking a vehicle. For all practical purposes, the unit counts as having moved for the opponent's shooting and assault phases. After all, that's the turn on which the movement occurred.

Again:

If I disembark on my opponent's turn, can I move on my own movement phase?
Can I assault on my own assault phase?

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn...

1. The rule cited presupposes that you've disembarked on your own movement phase.

Then show the change when a Transport is Wrecked. I can tell you the Wrecked rules does not state that.

• Wrecked (other than Zooming Flyers). The passengers must immediately disembark in the usual manner, save that they must end their move wholly within 3" of the vehicle, rather than 6". If, even by performing an emergency disembarkation, some models are unable to disembark, then any models that cannot disembark are removed as casualties. This does not prevent the rest of the unit from disembarking. The unit must then take a Pinning test. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

No, aside from the distance, this is considered a normal disembark.

Traditio wrote:
2. The word "that" must be emphasized.

And what is the the "that"? This portion of a sentence is a caveat. When a caveat is used, it is referring to the previous portion of the sentence. The only thing that could be referred to as part of the turn in the previous portion of the sentence is manifesting Psychic Powers and Shooting Phase.

Traditio wrote:
3. I could argue back that the "subsequent shooting phase" bit applies to overwatch on the opponent's turn if a wreck forces a disembark.

A Shooting Attack is not the Shooting Phase, though. Unless you can provide sufficient evidence that Overwatch is an actual Shooting Phase possessed by the models, this point is useless.

Traditio wrote:

It is not just the "the" subsequent Shooting Phase, but "their" subsequent Shooting Phase. Who is the "they"? The only possibility is the "models" who just finished disembarking. It is the only "they" that could be possibly be applying to this situation. No mention that "they" could possibly be the ones who forced the disembark.

The referent of "that" turn is obviously the one on which the disembark occurred.

As always, when interpreting the rules, apply common sense.

Disembarking counts as a movement. Therefore, on the turn in which it occurs, the disembarking unit counts as moved.

So, if the OP were to have assaulted that unit, then that unit would only fire at half range/RoF.

How could "that" be referring to the turn of the disembark when it just talked about a following Shooting Phase possessed by the models?

Apply common sense when reading English. It is out of order if it was to only be applied to the turn of the disembark. If "that turn" specifically meant the turn the disembark happened, the sentence would read: "After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase..."

No, proper grammar would would consider the mention of "counting as moving that turn" as a caveat to the previous statement, and all that statement does is talk about is manifesting Psychic Powers and the Shooting Phase. So, "that turn" is referring to the model's subsequent Shooting Phase and not necessarily the turn in disembarked (though most often they still are the same thing, just not in the OP's case).

Traditio wrote:

So, the only sequence could possibly be:
1) Enemy turn: player hits Transport and Wrecks it, forcing the unit to Disembark. - Disembarking models have not reached their Shooting Phase.
2) Disembarked models go through their Movement Phase.
3) Disembarked models go through their Psychic Phase, counting as having moved this turn.
4) Disembarked models go through their Shooting Phase, counting as having moved this turn.

Again, this is an over-literal interpretation which fails to take the disembark rule in its proper context. The assumption is that you are disembarking on your own turn. That's why a different set of rules are given later on for forcing a disembark by wrecking a vehicle. For all practical purposes, the unit counts as having moved for the opponent's shooting and assault phases. After all, that's the turn on which the movement occurred.

Again:

If I disembark on my opponent's turn, can I move on my own movement phase?
Can I assault on my own assault phase?

Disembarking in your opponent's turn does not address movement in the movement phase. The only thing addressed is the model's subsequent attempt to manifest Psychic Powers, Shooting Phase, and Assault Phase. Subsequent means "following". If they were Disembarked in the opponent's Shooting or Assault Phase, it cannot be the turn they disembarked, since that is not the model's following Shooting or Assault Phase. If they had meant it for just "that turn" to only mean the turn they disembarked, the use of "subsequent" would have been left out when referencing the Shooting Phase or Assault Phase.

So, "that turn" can only be referring to the previously mentioned "subsequent Shooting phase" due to the flow of the sentence and the use of referring to the model's Phases, and not just that simple turn that the disembarking happened.

Use a little common sense and more importantly use the words that are actually used in the order they are used.