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.

I advanced my Transport and my Opponent fired Overwatch, killed my Transport. Now I wanted to disembark, but my Opponent said I cannot. Units cannot disembark from a Transport that advanced this Turn says the Movement Phase Rules. But I must disembark from a destroyed Transport, says the Transport Rules. What now?

Follow the destroyed transport rule.

"any embarked units MUST disembark"

The example below the destroyed transport section also specifies this.

The destroyed transport rule is more specific than the disembark rule.

 Bla_Ze wrote:
Follow the destroyed transport rule.

"any embarked units MUST disembark"

The example below the destroyed transport section also specifies this.

The destroyed transport rule is more specific than the disembark rule.

What makes you say that it's more specific?
Plus, generally speaking, can't trumps can or even must.

How I would play it, as a casual game, would be they have to make an Emergency Disembarkation, following the rules for that. But that's not RAW, just what I feel like a good compromise is.

Edit: To use an example, if Unit A must target Unit B with their shooting attacks, can they still shoot them if they have no Line of Sight?

Personally, I would rule this as the units would disembark as normal. While RAW is technically a little fuzzy, I think the intent is clear.

"Units that start your Movement phase embarked within a TRANSPORT can disembark this phase, provided their TRANSPORT has not Advanced or Fallen Back."

This specifies that it is specific to the movement phase. GW just didn't think of the edge case where a transport that is advancing dies in the movement phase to overwatch. Thus I would treat it the same as if they had killed it in their shooting phase.

If the intent behind the rule was that units in a transport that advanced on your last turn couldn't disembark no matter what (and thus dies I guess?), then there would be a ruling for it in your opponent's shooting phase too. What is the functional difference to your models with a transport you advanced if it's killed in overwatch vs killed in their shooting phase?

The timing is different.
You cannot disembark from a transport that has Advanced this turn. If you kill an enemy transport in your shooting phase, it didn’t advance this turn.

I would honestly question the mindset of an opponent who would try to pull this one.

It may be a bit fuzzy on the specific RAW but RAI, what other options are there? Does he just expect the unit to die?

It's a bit silly to think even for a minute that the unit can't disembark. Some may say it's a shame the rules are not clear; I think it's a shame that the rules are written in a kind of cod-legalese now, as it encourages this kind or rules lawyering.

 PaddyMick wrote:
It's a bit silly to think even for a minute that the unit can't disembark. Some may say it's a shame the rules are not clear; I think it's a shame that the rules are written in a kind of cod-legalese now, as it encourages this kind or rules lawyering.

Wrong; they write the rules in legalese to prevent this kind of rules lawyering, because there are always going to be TFGs out there who are going to try to pull this on someone.

If this happens to you in a tourney, call a judge to tell them they're being a donkey cave. Otherwise, never play that person again.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The timing is different.
You cannot disembark from a transport that has Advanced this turn. If you kill an enemy transport in your shooting phase, it didn’t advance this turn.

Technically it says this phase not this turn. If there was a way to disembark a unit in your shooting phase (say if you overloaded a hazardous weapon and blew up your transport that advanced) it would be completely allowed RAW. I don't see how either of these are all that different, both out of sequence advance disembarkations.

As others said above, what's the alternative, the entire unit is just dead? How does that make logical sense from context other than someone being TFG.

 Tawnis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The timing is different.
You cannot disembark from a transport that has Advanced this turn. If you kill an enemy transport in your shooting phase, it didn’t advance this turn.

Technically it says this phase not this turn. If there was a way to disembark a unit in your shooting phase (say if you overloaded a hazardous weapon and blew up your transport that advanced) it would be completely allowed RAW. I don't see how either of these are all that different, both out of sequence advance disembarkations.

As others said above, what's the alternative, the entire unit is just dead? How does that make logical sense from context other than someone being TFG.

Because the 40k rules are well known for being predicated on sensible and reasonable outcomes.

Snark aside, I already said how I would play it-and it wouldn't be "Unit is dead, so sad."
But that's how I'm reading the RAW.

Fair points on both I suppose.

Though my point was more from the rulebook: "In a game as wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you"

Using this ruling, I can't imagine anyone who wants to play a fair game agrees to anything other than, the unit disembarks as though the vehicle had been destroyed normally.

 Tawnis wrote:
Fair points on both I suppose.

Though my point was more from the rulebook: "In a game as wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you"

Using this ruling, I can't imagine anyone who wants to play a fair game agrees to anything other than, the unit disembarks as though the vehicle had been destroyed normally.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How I would play it, as a casual game, would be they have to make an Emergency Disembarkation, following the rules for that. But that's not RAW, just what I feel like a good compromise is.

That's my thoughts on it.

This could be clearer in the rules, but the language is sufficient to allow the unit to disembark since must is stronger than cannot. The relevant rules passages are:

DISEMBARK....Units cannot disembark from a Transport model that either Advanced or Fell Back this turn.

DESTROYED TRANSPORTS
If a Transport model is destroyed, any units embarked within that Transport model must immediately disembark (see opposite) before that Transport model is removed from the battlefield.

 alextroy wrote:
This could be clearer in the rules, but the language is sufficient to allow the unit to disembark since must is stronger than cannot. The relevant rules passages are:

DISEMBARK....Units cannot disembark from a Transport model that either Advanced or Fell Back this turn.

DESTROYED TRANSPORTS
If a Transport model is destroyed, any units embarked within that Transport model must immediately disembark (see opposite) before that Transport model is removed from the battlefield.

Is "Must is stronger than cannot" in the rules anywhere?
Like, a designer document or something? Legitimate question-I don't know.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
This could be clearer in the rules, but the language is sufficient to allow the unit to disembark since must is stronger than cannot. The relevant rules passages are:

DISEMBARK....Units cannot disembark from a Transport model that either Advanced or Fell Back this turn.

DESTROYED TRANSPORTS
If a Transport model is destroyed, any units embarked within that Transport model must immediately disembark (see opposite) before that Transport model is removed from the battlefield.

Is "Must is stronger than cannot" in the rules anywhere?
Like, a designer document or something? Legitimate question-I don't know.

In more general terms "Can is stronger than Cannot" is very well established (for example assault weapons vs the general rule of you cannot shoot after advancing). "Must" just feels like an involuntary "Can" to me.

RAW, I'd say that the unit must disembark as an involuntary action regardless of the other rules for voluntarily disembarking from a transport. The rules could do with being written more clearly here, as the same situation would arise from a transport falling back and being overwatched or a unit embarking and then the transport being overwatched in the same phase. A better written rule would have included these scenarios in the terms for when to make an emergency disembarkation.

"Units cannot disembark from a Transport model that either Advanced or Fell Back this turn." normally this applies.
However the more specific rule "must immediately disembark" is in response to a certain situation and takes precedence in this case.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
This could be clearer in the rules, but the language is sufficient to allow the unit to disembark since must is stronger than cannot. The relevant rules passages are:

DISEMBARK....Units cannot disembark from a Transport model that either Advanced or Fell Back this turn.

DESTROYED TRANSPORTS
If a Transport model is destroyed, any units embarked within that Transport model must immediately disembark (see opposite) before that Transport model is removed from the battlefield.

Is "Must is stronger than cannot" in the rules anywhere?
Like, a designer document or something? Legitimate question-I don't know.

Must, can, and cannot are not rules terms that are individually defined in the Core Rules or Rules Commentary. We are left to default to standard English.

 alextroy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
This could be clearer in the rules, but the language is sufficient to allow the unit to disembark since must is stronger than cannot. The relevant rules passages are:

DISEMBARK....Units cannot disembark from a Transport model that either Advanced or Fell Back this turn.

DESTROYED TRANSPORTS
If a Transport model is destroyed, any units embarked within that Transport model must immediately disembark (see opposite) before that Transport model is removed from the battlefield.

Is "Must is stronger than cannot" in the rules anywhere?
Like, a designer document or something? Legitimate question-I don't know.

Must, can, and cannot are not rules terms that are individually defined in the Core Rules or Rules Commentary. We are left to default to standard English.

If someone who is missing their legs is told "You must walk through here," and they reply "I cannot," which is stronger?

Well it says before the destroyed transport is removed. So if he wants to make you delay disembarking fine, but the destroyed transport can't be removed until you do, so invincible bunker on the table?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
This could be clearer in the rules, but the language is sufficient to allow the unit to disembark since must is stronger than cannot. The relevant rules passages are:

DISEMBARK....Units cannot disembark from a Transport model that either Advanced or Fell Back this turn.

DESTROYED TRANSPORTS
If a Transport model is destroyed, any units embarked within that Transport model must immediately disembark (see opposite) before that Transport model is removed from the battlefield.

Is "Must is stronger than cannot" in the rules anywhere?
Like, a designer document or something? Legitimate question-I don't know.

Must, can, and cannot are not rules terms that are individually defined in the Core Rules or Rules Commentary. We are left to default to standard English.

If someone who is missing their legs is told "You must walk through here," and they reply "I cannot," which is stronger?

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

From https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Fair enough.
If Unit A MUST shoot at Unit B, but Unit B is out of line of sight, can they shoot Unit B?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Fair enough.
If Unit A MUST shoot at Unit B, but Unit B is out of line of sight, can they shoot Unit B?

Do you have an example when this could be the case. I can't think if one (not to say that means it doesn't exist) but it could also be that the terminology is avoided on purpose.

I would echo the earlier statements about how rules overlap. A unit cannot shoot and charge in the turn in which it advance. A unit cannot disembark from a transport on a turn in which it Advanced for Fell Back. Exact same wording. Yet we have assault weapons that allow us to shoot when we advance, and abilities to advance and charge.

This follows the exact same rule. The transport being destroyed on the same turn it advanced and the units disembarking interacts with the rules in the same way that firing an assault weapon when advancing does.

Normally one rule applies, in this case we have a more specific rule about disembarking, so that takes precedence.

Assault weapons explicitly allow you to break the normal “Cannot shoot after advance” rule.

Disembarking from a destroyed vehicle does not.

The question is does an unqualified must override a cannot?

As I see it as cannot means you are not allowed to make that choice do to something while must is making the choice for you. Must means you are "compelled" to do something you cannot "choose" to do.

And we always have the rules breakdown part where if you cannot disembark from a Transport that Advanced what do you do with the embarked unit? And when do you remove the Transport that the unit hasn't yet disembarked from despite that being required before you remove the model?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assault weapons explicitly allow you to break the normal “Cannot shoot after advance” rule.

Disembarking from a destroyed vehicle does not.

While you are correct that it doesn't use that exact wording, Assault gives you the choice to ignore the rule (you don't have to shoot with an Assault weapon) where the destroyed vehicle says you MUST disembark. This is a higher priority than a may.

When rules are ambiguous you look to similar situations. Assault proves that a general rule like advance preventing something can be overridden by another rule requirement. As there is no other logical option than to disembark the unit that it says MUST disembark, that is clearly what is to be done in this situation.

While it does not explicitly state that it overwrites the advance preventing disembarkation, the only other option would be to not disembark the unit and it is fully removed as a casualty. There is zero precedence for this being a thing and as you are sticking to, does not say in the rules explicitly anywhere that you would do this either. Or, is the transport indestructible, because following your logic, the units MUST disembark before the Transport is removed from the table? Again, this would be another ridiculous take on it.

I know it's hard to ask sometimes, but a little common sense is required to navigate things in life. No one that's not trying to game the system would rule this in any way other than the unit disembarks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Faustpanzer wrote:
I advanced my Transport and my Opponent fired Overwatch, killed my Transport. Now I wanted to disembark, but my Opponent said I cannot. Units cannot disembark from a Transport that advanced this Turn says the Movement Phase Rules. But I must disembark from a destroyed Transport, says the Transport Rules. What now?

To answer the original question and provide a little advice.

Yes you should disembark the unit as normal.

Also, if anyone tries to pull this nonsense on you again, just tell that that by the same logic because the rules explicitly state that the transport CANNOT be removed from the table until the unit within disembarks, you're transport doesn't actually die. It's just as stupid as their ruling, but they cannot disprove that argument without disproving their own.

"If a TRANSPORT model is destroyed, any units embarked within that TRANSPORT model must immediately disembark (see below) before that TRANSPORT model is removed from the battlefield."

A possible Way to resolve this is to use Emergency Disembarkation, which is not the same as Disembarkation. It can be used when a Unit cannot be set up within 3" of a Transport.

Faustpanzer wrote:
A possible Way to resolve this is to use Emergency Disembarkation, which is not the same as Disembarkation. It can be used when a Unit cannot be set up within 3" of a Transport.

Unnecessary. The rules clearly tell you when to use Emergency Disembarkation, and it has nothing to do with whether or not a Transport was destroyed immediately after Advancing. This whole 'argument' is predicated entirely on someone thinking they found a 'Gotcha!' in the rules that really doesn't exist.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Faustpanzer wrote:
A possible Way to resolve this is to use Emergency Disembarkation, which is not the same as Disembarkation. It can be used when a Unit cannot be set up within 3" of a Transport.

Unnecessary. The rules clearly tell you when to use Emergency Disembarkation, and it has nothing to do with whether or not a Transport was destroyed immediately after Advancing. This whole 'argument' is predicated entirely on someone thinking they found a 'Gotcha!' in the rules that really doesn't exist.

The rules also say you cannot Disembark from a transport that has made an Advance or Fall Back move this turn.
Since it doesn't say what happens, the point that the game kinda just grinds to a halt (if played purely RAW) is a valid one. Doesn't change the RAW, just means the RAW is broken, which is not a huge surprise given GW's track record.

But I really dislike the attitude of saying that if someone disagrees with you, they're trying to pull a fast one. Emergency Disembarkation makes sense, from a lore point of view-not only has your transport been destroyed, it was destroyed while barreling forward at max speed. That's gonna hurt a lot more than getting tossed from a stationary tank.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Faustpanzer wrote:
A possible Way to resolve this is to use Emergency Disembarkation, which is not the same as Disembarkation. It can be used when a Unit cannot be set up within 3" of a Transport.

Unnecessary. The rules clearly tell you when to use Emergency Disembarkation, and it has nothing to do with whether or not a Transport was destroyed immediately after Advancing. This whole 'argument' is predicated entirely on someone thinking they found a 'Gotcha!' in the rules that really doesn't exist.

The rules also say you cannot Disembark from a transport that has made an Advance or Fall Back move this turn.
Since it doesn't say what happens, the point that the game kinda just grinds to a halt (if played purely RAW) is a valid one. Doesn't change the RAW, just means the RAW is broken, which is not a huge surprise given GW's track record.

But I really dislike the attitude of saying that if someone disagrees with you, they're trying to pull a fast one. Emergency Disembarkation makes sense, from a lore point of view-not only has your transport been destroyed, it was destroyed while barreling forward at max speed. That's gonna hurt a lot more than getting tossed from a stationary tank.

This is not about disagreeing with someone; I agree that the RAW wording itself is broken. But anyone trying to claim that the unit inside just dies is, in my view, a TFG-type. I also object to the idea of using Emergency Disembarkation as a 'compromise', because I don't believe the situation requires a compromise - it requires a modicum of common sense (and, of course, an FAQ from GW).

GW even tells us that, in the event of a conflict the RAW can't solve, we should talk it out to a common-sense conclusion.