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.

At a GT, opponent kills my raider, my wyches disembark within 3" and I place them on the other side of a LSO blocking wall, all within legit distance. He says there's a rule/FAQ that sez infantry can't disembark through walls.

He let it go and allowed me to place the wyches in safety, as it was a very cool, easy going, fun game, but said that it was somewhere.

Does anyone know where that rule might exist? Which FAQ?

There is no such rule/FAQ. A disembarked unit is set up. It is not moving. Even it is moving, it can move through walls, because its INFANTRY.

 p5freak wrote:
There is no such rule/FAQ. A disembarked unit is set up. It is not moving. Even it is moving, it can move through walls, because its INFANTRY.

Exactly what I thought and still think, and would call if I were a TO, but since he was a very cool guy, and he didn't insist that put the girls in LOS to be shot up by more of his guns, I'm wondering that he mighta been right.

 p5freak wrote:
There is no such rule/FAQ. A disembarked unit is set up. It is not moving. Even it is moving, it can move through walls, because its INFANTRY.

Just a little note on this otherwise correct answer:

INFANTRY can move through walls of Ruins. Not necessarily all walls.

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
There is no such rule/FAQ. A disembarked unit is set up. It is not moving. Even it is moving, it can move through walls, because its INFANTRY.

Just a little note on this otherwise correct answer:

INFANTRY can move through walls of Ruins. Not necessarily all walls.

Thanks, but, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. I know (all CAPS!) infantry can go through walls. See, I'm asking not for what rules you can cite, I'm asking if anyone knows if this ruling exists. If you don't know if it does, then posting what p5freak already posted is just repetition, and not helpful.

If this thread fades and moves down the dakka stack then I will begin to see that the citation of my opponent was likely erroneous. More dudes citing INFANTRY (all CAPS!) rules is supercilious.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
There is no such rule/FAQ. A disembarked unit is set up. It is not moving. Even it is moving, it can move through walls, because its INFANTRY.

Just a little note on this otherwise correct answer:

INFANTRY can move through walls of Ruins. Not necessarily all walls.

Thanks, but, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. I know (all CAPS!) infantry can go through walls. See, I'm asking not for what rules you can cite, I'm asking if anyone knows if this ruling exists. If you don't know if it does, then posting what p5freak already posted is just repetition, and not helpful.

If this thread fades and moves down the dakka stack then I will begin to see that the citation of my opponent was likely erroneous. More dudes citing INFANTRY (all CAPS!) rules is supercilious.

That isn't what I was saying.

My point wasn't anything to do with capitals, it was that INFANTRY can only move through walls if they are ruins. They cannot move through other walls.

The rule has already been explained to you. It's the rule for disembarking. It doesn't say it's movement, so it doesn't need to have a clear path. You just place the models.

 Stux wrote:
That isn't what I was saying.

My point wasn't anything to do with capitals, it was that INFANTRY can only move through walls if they are ruins.

Capitals imply yelling or shouting, as opposed to the arrow brackets in the codicies. I will guess that you simply meant to convey the keyword with all caps, instead emphasis of "You're NOT listening, dummy!".

 Stux wrote:
They cannot move through other walls.

The rule has already been explained to you. It's the rule for disembarking. It doesn't say it's movement, so it doesn't need to have a clear path. You just place the models.

Walls of ruins, yes, they can move through. Walls of intact buildings, no, they must find the door, citing bastion rules. Yes, I understand your point. And you are correct.

But that's not what I'm asking for. It was a ruin, so that is not an issue. And you've explained those rules for this thread's 3rd time, which oddly, doesn't seem to have learned me, huh?

You're now experiencing that frustration teachers have when you've explained something to a student and they say, "I dun get it." For the 2nd or 3rd time.

- - - - - - - - - -
My problem is kinda like this:

Me, somewhere in Death Valley, Calif. : "Hey, there, desert tortoise, have you ever seen a dolphin? I don't know what it is, but some bird told me about it."

Tortoise: "Nope. Never seen one. So, they don't exist. Fish, now those I've seen after rains swell up the river."

That dolphin *might* be out there, but just because the tortoise hasn't seen it doesn't mean the dolphin is non-existent.

Does that make my inquiry clearer?

Perhaps your response might've been, "Casey, I know of no such ruling. There is the intact building rule, where walls cannot be passed through. Maybe the opponent was citing those?"
Or some such.

Arrow Brackets are for keywords you can fill in, like <REGIMENT>. INFANTRY never uses arrow brackets.

There is no 'ruling' on it if you're expecting it to be spelled out. There doesn't need to be, it's logically deduced from the rules for disembarking in the Rulebook.

When disembarking it doesn't matter if they're ruins or not, that is in reference to movement. Disembarking is not movement, you simply place the models within 3" of the transport. The transport could be entirely encircled by impassable terrain and the rules would allow you to place the models on the other side of the terrain, so long as they were within 3".

Might not make much sense as a simulation, but that's how it is.

 Stux wrote:
Arrow Brackets are for keywords you can fill in, like <REGIMENT>. INFANTRY never uses arrow brackets.

Thanks for the clarification!

 Stux wrote:
There is no 'ruling' on it if you're expecting it to be spelled out. There doesn't need to be, it's logically deduced from the rules for disembarking in the Rulebook.

Tortoise: "There is no dolphin. How could there be something that big that only swims like a fish? And the river only fills up enough for a few months of the year, for those small fish that would fit in my mouth? Not that I'd want to eat one."

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Arrow Brackets are for keywords you can fill in, like <REGIMENT>. INFANTRY never uses arrow brackets.

Thanks for the clarification!

 Stux wrote:
There is no 'ruling' on it if you're expecting it to be spelled out. There doesn't need to be, it's logically deduced from the rules for disembarking in the Rulebook.

Tortoise: "There is no dolphin. How could there be something that big that only swims like a fish? And the river only fills up enough for a few months of the year, for those small fish that would fit in my mouth? Not that I'd want to eat one."

I'm sorry but that's how it is.

If you're just going to be obtuse then I'm out, someone else can deal with it.

Typing a term in all caps in YMDC is to indicate it’s a keyword, OP. It’s not condescension or mockery. Worth familiarising yourself with other threads in the forum before having a go at someone trying to answer your question.

Stux has explained what the rules are and no amount of desert parables are gonna change that.

 Brothererekose wrote:
At a GT, opponent kills my raider, my wyches disembark within 3" and I place them on the other side of a LSO blocking wall, all within legit distance. He says there's a rule/FAQ that sez infantry can't disembark through walls.

In previous editions, there have existed rules and/or FAQs that made disembarking subject to rules limiting movement. Those rules and/or FAQs do not exist in the current edition.

In the best case scenario, the other player is suffering from edition change amnesia. This happens from time time, and you should be considerate when dealing with this sort of person, directing them to judges and the like while helping them adjust to the changes in the game.

Hi, JohnnyH.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Typing a term in all caps in YMDC is to indicate it’s a keyword, OP. It’s not condescension or mockery. Worth familiarising yourself with other threads in the forum before having a go at someone trying to answer your question.

Stux has explained what the rules are and no amount of desert parables are gonna change that.

I've to market and back and spent the time thinking about why Stux and I weren't on the same place, and then I realized he's *clarifying* a rule, when I'm asking if someone can help me *find* a rule. There's a difference.

For example, overwatch: the BRB states clearly you only hit on s.

Let's say Bob had an opponent pulling off overwatch hitting on 5s. He can't remember what it the exception was called, but in good faith accepted it and played on. But now he comes to YMDC and asks where's the exception to the BRB. As here in this thread, continually pointing to the BRB that it's for overwatch, doesn't help him.

Until a Tau player chimes in and says, "Maybe it was this? Page 127 of the Tau codex has a strategem ... coordianting fire arcs ... " yadda yadda.


Given that nearly every rule in the BRB has an exception in the codecies as well as the several FAQs in 8e, that's a *lot* of material to keep track of.

And, GW flip-flops on things, too. Do you remember that being able to 'fly' in the charge phase was taken away? Jumping Smash captains took a nerfbat to their wings. But as of April 29th, they can fly in the charge phase again!



So, giving *my* very nice opponent the benefit of the doubt, I am asking for more bodies (the YMDC community) to help in my search for a possible exception. I am not asking for someone to point out the rule I already know, like in the overwatch example. Like I typed on my third post, if no one finds the exception, then the thread will fade down the list as the search yields nothing ... and the rule exception will continue to elude me. Lastly, if an opponent points it out in another game, I'll ask for the text citation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 solkan wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
At a GT, opponent kills my raider, my wyches disembark within 3" and I place them on the other side of a LSO blocking wall, all within legit distance. He says there's a rule/FAQ that sez infantry can't disembark through walls.

In previous editions, there have existed rules and/or FAQs that made disembarking subject to rules limiting movement. Those rules and/or FAQs do not exist in the current edition.

In the best case scenario, the other player is suffering from edition change amnesia. This happens from time time, and you should be considerate when dealing with this sort of person, directing them to judges and the like while helping them adjust to the changes in the game.

I think you might be right about the edition hangover being the most likely reason for my opponent's call. I'm a 4e veteran and he's a 2e veteran.

And we were considerate, got lunch and beer later, met his wife and kids day 2. Positive experience.

I've tried hunting for him on FB, but that's a wait for now.

So, in 5e or 6e, did the ruling come down about not being to assault the turn after disembarking from a destroyed vehicle? Or was that core rules? I know it's back for 8e as of last week's FAQ. Did "Rhino-Rush" in 2e/3e ever get nerfed by a FAQ or simply went away with 4e's mechanics?

Ockham's Razor-wise, you've probably hit on the best reason. Thank you.

 Brothererekose wrote:
Hi, JohnnyH.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Typing a term in all caps in YMDC is to indicate it’s a keyword, OP. It’s not condescension or mockery. Worth familiarising yourself with other threads in the forum before having a go at someone trying to answer your question.

Stux has explained what the rules are and no amount of desert parables are gonna change that.

I've to market and back and spent the time thinking about why Stux and I weren't on the same place, and then I realized he's *clarifying* a rule, when I'm asking if someone can help me *find* a rule. There's a difference.

For example, overwatch: the BRB states clearly you only hit on s.

Let's say Bob had an opponent pulling off overwatch hitting on 5s. He can't remember what it the exception was called, but in good faith accepted it and played on. But now he comes to YMDC and asks where's the exception to the BRB. As here in this thread, continually pointing to the BRB that it's for overwatch, doesn't help him.

Until a Tau player chimes in and says, "Maybe it was this? Page 127 of the Tau codex has a strategem ... coordianting fire arcs ... " yadda yadda.


Given that nearly every rule in the BRB has an exception in the codecies as well as the several FAQs in 8e, that's a *lot* of material to keep track of.

And, GW flip-flops on things, too. Do you remember that being able to 'fly' in the charge phase was taken away? Jumping Smash captains took a nerfbat to their wings. But as of April 29th, they can fly in the charge phase again!



So, giving *my* very nice opponent the benefit of the doubt, I am asking for more bodies (the YMDC community) to help in my search for a possible exception. I am not asking for someone to point out the rule I already know, like in the overwatch example. Like I typed on my third post, if no one finds the exception, then the thread will fade down the list as the search yields nothing ... and the rule exception will continue to elude me. Lastly, if an opponent points it out in another game, I'll ask for the text citation.

You are asking for people to prove a negative.

As you have finally figured out, the person making the original claim needs to provide actual proof of the rule.
If they can not show you the faq/rule, then it does not exist.

 Draco765 wrote:
You are asking for people to prove a negative.

*scratches head*
I don't think so, am I?. I think I'm asking for a search that is prolly in vain.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Draco765 wrote:
You are asking for people to prove a negative.

*scratches head*
I don't think so, am I?. I think I'm asking for a search that is prolly in vain.

You're asking people to show you a rule that prevents the situation you outlined. Such a rule doesn't exist. We can't show it to you. What we can do is point to the Disembark rules and show they state you place your models within 3" of the transport. There are no other caveats. It's not movement so you can place them anywhere you want within 3". There is no rule that prevents them jumping behind a building, provided they're within 3" of the transport. We can't show you a lack of rule.

The ‘rule’ you’re looking for isn’t a rule and doesn’t exist.

Not sure why you won’t accept this; you’ve asked, been answered but refute consensus. Good luck with that.

And 'round the mulberry bush for a third or fourth time.

Just like Bob asking about overwatch: it isn't helpful to just keep pointing at a rule he already knows, which keeps happening from you guys. Like the turtle not getting the concept of dolphins and oceans, he goes to what he knows and draws conclusions from there. In that case false conclusions that don't help with the mysterious dolphin creature.

Guys, maybe answering thus comes off best:
"I'm pretty sure that rule doesn't exist, Casey. With the April 29 FAQ dropping, my buddies and I have just reread through everything. Nothing like you've stated comes up."

"Nope, I can't recall any rule like that."

"I'm a Rogue Trader veteran, and I can't think of anything like that."

"I've been TO at (big event) and many others. I don't recall ever having heard that one."

See? Those are cool responses. Like scouts/SearchAndRescue reporting that their sector comes up negative.

And yes, I am accepting that this rule doesn't currently exist, if it ever did. Time to call off the search.


**edit**
- - - - - - - - -
I tracked him down! The guy just got back to me while I was typing that last (this) post. He'd misstated his intent. The rule never existed.

I’m baffled. Enjoy your games.

"Hey. This rule doesn't exist."

"Why do you guys keep telling me what I already know?! I'm asking where I can find this rule!"

:|

 flandarz wrote:
"Hey. This rule doesn't exist."

One guy telling me this? Okay, but I'm going to hold out for a lot of consensus. How much? I'm not sure. Several posting, with some experience or expertise thrown in to give their opinion/statement some weight, *now* you've got a persuasive argument.

 flandarz wrote:
"Why do you guys keep telling me what I already know?!

Naw, I didn't write that. I pointed out that it's useless to do so.

 flandarz wrote:
I'm asking where I can find this rule!"

:|

And no one responded, "I looked and can't find it." Except another buddy, who was cool enough to actually read a couple FAQs.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’m baffled.

That makes two of us. What just happened?

I think the turtle is well and truly dead, by this point.

Moving on.