Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 04:50:14
Subject: Re:Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Dayton, Ohio
|
How many players out there use something for craters when vehicles explode? I got several sheets of fun foam material at the craft store and now I have rhino templates, as well as chimera, land raider, and wave serpent sizes. I always get plenty of compliments on my craters when I go to tourneys!
|
If more of us valued food and cheer and 40K over hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 05:28:02
Subject: Re:Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Krak_kirby, I made up a bunch of plaster craters and such partly because I was bored one weekend, and partly to avoid not having any craters if someone is inconsiderate enough to blow up my tanks (or if I'm lucky enough to blow up theirs).
On topic, my major complaint about not enforcing the customary 1" exclusion is that it allows the possibility of placing a model in base contact with an enemy model which wasn't assaulted. The possibility of that condition without an explicit statement either allowing it or stating what to do when it happens is sufficiently bad that the one inch rule should be applied.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 06:00:50
Subject: Re:Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Guardsman with Flashlight
|
solkan wrote:Krak_kirby, I made up a bunch of plaster craters and such partly because I was bored one weekend, and partly to avoid not having any craters if someone is inconsiderate enough to blow up my tanks (or if I'm lucky enough to blow up theirs).
On topic, my major complaint about not enforcing the customary 1" exclusion is that it allows the possibility of placing a model in base contact with an enemy model which wasn't assaulted. The possibility of that condition without an explicit statement either allowing it or stating what to do when it happens is sufficiently bad that the one inch rule should be applied.
I don't understand why it matters. If the models are forced to be placed within an inch of the enemy or (god forbid) in base contact so what? It isn't their turn anyway - and even when it becomes their turn - being completely surrounded and within one inch of the enemy, they have no choice but to assault. Seeing as the opponent assaulted the unit in the first place - I don't see the issue.
In general - I can understand why you would not want to be disadvantaged when rolling a supposedly better result than say wrecked, where if the unit can't disembark they are destroyed. This is advantageous to you if the unit inside is very good in close combat because they are all killed without getting a chance to retaliate. In contrast - if the vehicle explodes - the enemy unit might be able to assault you moments later (if they are not pinned). And that is the root of the whole argument - people dont want to be disadvantaged in the supposedly BETTER scenario.
Think about this for a moment though - if you were your troops - and you were shooting at a vehicle, of course you would love it to explode. You would marvel at your own awesomeness and high-five your comrades. If you are assaulting the vehicle however - why the hell would you want it to explode all over you? It is clearly not a nice thing to happen - and I think it is designed to reflect this by having any surviving troops inside able to assault you if they are not pinned.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 08:17:45
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Adolescent Youth with Potential
Brisbane, Australia
|
One thing to remember : the vehichle has an aura of 2" (because it's a transport.)
so, if it happens that you can't fit them in the tanks place, put them up to 2" away, otherwise, get a crater.
|
2000 point army.
I probably rely too heavily on Terminators, and I've got 3 land raiders.
-sigh- |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 10:01:22
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Agile Revenant Titan
|
I made templates for my Ork Trukks and Battlewagons out of some balsa wood, grey pumice and some spare Ork bits. It makes it very easy for gameplay purposes.
|
No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 10:15:25
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Draw the outline of a rhino on a piece of paper and try to fit 10 models inside. You can't do it. The rhino is roughly 2" wide and 3" long so at most you could possibly fit 6 Space Marines inside. Now if the three Marines facing the side of the rhino that was assaulted are removed because obviously they'll be within 1" of an enemy unit then at best you are left with three Space Marines.
Why are you left with 3 Space Marines? If the disembarking rules are applied yes. Otherwise you have to place all 10 models in the area left by the Rhino, so the game just stops at that point as you can't do this.
On how you'd play it in the 2nd paragraph that is how I'd play it to he'd have to bunch up his mean but they'd be allowed to spill over up to 2" around as long as they observe the 1" rule.
If the vehicle is totally surrounded? Then in this instance they'd all be dead just as if a Vehicle Wrecked result had been acheived.
It might not be RaW but that is still the rules. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't understand why it matters. If the models are forced to be placed within an inch of the enemy or (god forbid) in base contact so what? It isn't their turn anyway - and even when it becomes their turn - being completely surrounded and within one inch of the enemy, they have no choice but to assault. Seeing as the opponent assaulted the unit in the first place - I don't see the issue.
In general - I can understand why you would not want to be disadvantaged when rolling a supposedly better result than say wrecked, where if the unit can't disembark they are destroyed. This is advantageous to you if the unit inside is very good in close combat because they are all killed without getting a chance to retaliate. In contrast - if the vehicle explodes - the enemy unit might be able to assault you moments later (if they are not pinned). And that is the root of the whole argument - people dont want to be disadvantaged in the supposedly BETTER scenario.
Think about this for a moment though - if you were your troops - and you were shooting at a vehicle, of course you would love it to explode. You would marvel at your own awesomeness and high-five your comrades. If you are assaulting the vehicle however - why the hell would you want it to explode all over you? It is clearly not a nice thing to happen - and I think it is designed to reflect this by having any surviving troops inside able to assault you if they are not pinned.
The models aren't forced to assault they can fire their rapidfire or heavy weapons in which case they aren't allowed to assault. So another turn goes by of 2 units in base to base combat not in assault. In fact a player may decide this is what he wants to do simply to pin your unit there for another turn without assaulting them. As it can put everything in base to base contact and leave a big whole in the middle...
You are also forgetting the scenario where the Space Marines have their rhino exploded and mor ethan 6 survive the explosion whether or not you surround them you are at an impass. Or in fact any case where you are attacking one side of the transport then models would be placed in base to base contact but not be in assault and not be able to walk away next turn.
Explodes is already a worse result for the attackers they get hit by an S3 attack so that is already covered. But why would Explodes do less damage to a squad in a vehicle than wrecked would? That just makes no sense.
We are all agree with the following to facts:
1) The models are embarked before the vehicle explodes
2) The models are disembarked after the vehicle explodes
So surely using the disembarking rules is not that great a stretch of logic? Particularly as the "rules" given to cover this eventuality are just 2 sentences, leaving lots up in the air, whilst normal disembarking rules cover almost an entire page...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/17 10:30:07
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 11:52:53
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Guardsman with Flashlight
|
FlingitNow wrote:It might not be RaW but that is still the rules.
Bwahahahahahahhahahahhahhaha.
FlingitNow wrote:We are all agree with the following to facts:
1) The models are embarked before the vehicle explodes
2) The models are disembarked after the vehicle explodes
I am afraid we are all not agree that they are disembarking. The vehicle exploded. There is nothing left to "disembark" from. Therefore it is impossible to disembark in the traditional sense. However, we are arguing semantics here. Upon thinking about it at great length *strokes e-beard* I do believe that FlingitNow has a point here (as much as I hate losing a good argument).
|
I am always right. I thought I was wrong this one time, but I was wrong. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 13:21:58
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*
|
FlingitNow wrote:
Why are you left with 3 Space Marines? If the disembarking rules are applied yes. Otherwise you have to place all 10 models in the area left by the Rhino, so the game just stops at that point as you can't do this.
OK, you have some good points, but let's leave off the ridiculous game ending paradox argument. You and I both know it's completely spurious.
FlingitNow wrote:
On how you'd play it in the 2nd paragraph that is how I'd play it to he'd have to bunch up his mean but they'd be allowed to spill over up to 2" around as long as they observe the 1" rule.
If the vehicle is totally surrounded? Then in this instance they'd all be dead just as if a Vehicle Wrecked result had been acheived.
It might not be RaW but that is still the rules.
Um, no. Not at all. The rules don't say that at all. In fact, they specifically say something tat's close to the opposite. Any rhino sized vehicle or bigger will always have room for at least a couple of guys to survuve even if the 1" rule is in effect.
FlingitNow wrote:
The models aren't forced to assault they can fire their rapidfire or heavy weapons in which case they aren't allowed to assault. So another turn goes by of 2 units in base to base combat not in assault. In fact a player may decide this is what he wants to do simply to pin your unit there for another turn without assaulting them. As it can put everything in base to base contact and leave a big whole in the middle...
You are also forgetting the scenario where the Space Marines have their rhino exploded and mor ethan 6 survive the explosion whether or not you surround them you are at an impass. Or in fact any case where you are attacking one side of the transport then models would be placed in base to base contact but not be in assault and not be able to walk away next turn.
Explodes is already a worse result for the attackers they get hit by an S3 attack so that is already covered. But why would Explodes do less damage to a squad in a vehicle than wrecked would? That just makes no sense.
You've a step far here IMO. It's not the case that placing on the vehicle footprint automatically means base to base. All it would really entail is close but not in combat. That doesn't break the game rules at all. If they guy prefers to shoot fine, that doesn't break the rules either. Nothing's been lockd in BtB somehow in kind of no 1" scenario, and your examples don't really alter anything about how the explodes! result is or isn't supposed to work. I can see that you're just fleshing out your "it cases too many problems to be the case" position, but I think you need to abandon that line of reasoning, since it's the rules equivalent of a house rule.
As for what 'makes sense' about the various impacts of explodes vs wrecked, that's a non-starter. The order that the results are listed in, while generally assumed to worsen as the number rises, are not guaranteed to do so, and you're also only talking about a very narrow and specific example of when explodes! is less harmful than Wrecked. In pretty much every scenario explodes! is worse, just not in this specific one, and your thoughts about how 'fair' that sounds don't have any place on YMDC.
FlingitNow wrote:
We are all agree with the following to facts:
1) The models are embarked before the vehicle explodes
2) The models are disembarked after the vehicle explodes
So surely using the disembarking rules is not that great a stretch of logic? Particularly as the "rules" given to cover this eventuality are just 2 sentences, leaving lots up in the air, whilst normal disembarking rules cover almost an entire page...
That logic is no help. I can very easily just call the explodes! result an alternative to the disembark rules and say that yes, the squad is certainly disembarked after their vehicle explodes, but they didn't use the disembark rules to do so. The presence of the word doesn't guaranteed use of the rule, since 'disembarked' here refers to a state after an action, and that action doesn't have to be a use of the disembark rules. In fact, the counter position to yours specifically stipulates that explodes! and disembark are different, so all you've really said here is "if you assume that I'm correct then I'm correct" which isn't a position I find compelling.
As for the normal rules and their size relative to the explodes! result, that's a non-starter too. The disembark rules might be bigger, and in close proximity, but that doesn't mean they apply. Plus you can't actually use those rules to govern the action described in the explodes! result. From a RAW perspective you're on very thin ice (nonexistent ice actually). Your position makes sense, and this isn't something I'd ever argue about in an actual game, but this is YMDC here, and the standards for proof are a little different. I'd probably even play it your way in a game, but that doesn't mean you have a RAW basis for how youøre playing it - and you don't.
|
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 13:29:43
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
I am afraid we are all not agree that they are disembarking.
I didn't in that bit say that the were disembarking. The rules refer to models being disembarked after an explosion result and we all agree before hand they were embarked. It states clearly on page 67 " However, if a transport is drestroyed (either result), the unit may assault the now disembarked passenger...". They are embarked before hand and on either result are disembarked afterwards.
So the 2 points hold. Whether or not the models have performed the action disembarking to get from embarked to disembarked is the key barrier. RaW doesn't specifically state that this is the case, but I don't think it requires much common sense to work this out.
Just as the rules don't state how you roll a dice but it doesn't take much common sense to work out that lying a dice with a 6 on its side and rolling up to the top with your hand is not a valid dice roll. I think you are assumed to know how to roll a dice (though it never specifcally tells you), just as you are assumed to realise that you have to disembark to get from embarked to disembarked whilst it doesn't specifically state this is the case for the explosion result...
Just to point out that as a Tau and Marine player this rule doesn't really benefit me at all as I'm unlikely to be able to effectively surround an opponents vehicle in an assault (or indeed assault anything at all in the case of Tau)... The " RaW" interpretation would suit me better (particularly my Tau).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 17:10:38
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*
|
FlingitNow wrote:I am afraid we are all not agree that they are disembarking.
I didn't in that bit say that the were disembarking. The rules refer to models being disembarked after an explosion result and we all agree before hand they were embarked. It states clearly on page 67 " However, if a transport is drestroyed (either result), the unit may assault the now disembarked passenger...". They are embarked before hand and on either result are disembarked afterwards.
So the 2 points hold. Whether or not the models have performed the action disembarking to get from embarked to disembarked is the key barrier. RaW doesn't specifically state that this is the case, but I don't think it requires much common sense to work this out.
The RAW isn't going to get you a definitive answer on this, and the fact that the models are referred to as disembarked in the part you quote doesn't move the argument ahead for either side. From a 'makes sense' perspective yeah, I'm all for keeping the 1" rule in play (or not, I'm easy). Common sense answers aren't what YMDC aims for though. Personally, I'd just roll with this and whatever the other guy does should it come up is fine by me (within reason). Since the RAW doesn't seem to have a definitive answer I'd generally tend towards th permissive.
|
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 17:13:10
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Actually, I think there is a definitive answer, Mannanhin found it, see other thread:
Page 67, main rules:
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers,
Destroyed, either result equals disembarked passengers. Cannot disembark within an inch. Good enough? It is for me.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/12/17 17:14:39
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 17:19:42
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*
|
don_mondo wrote:Actually, I think there is a definitive answer, Mannanhin found it, see other thread:
Page 67, main rules:
However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers,
Destroyed, either result equals disembarked passengers. Cannot disembark within an inch. Good enough? It is for me.
Nope, not good enough (for YMDC). You can't actually employ the mechanics described in the disembark rules to the sequence of explodes! (see my earlier posts), and further the use of 'disembark' there describes a state after an action, not necessarily a disembark action though. The folks that holds the explodes! result as not disembarking can make a prefectly cogent argument without making nonsense out of the part you quoted.
Like I said, from an in game perspective I don't think anyone's going to have huge issues either way, but the RAW simply isn't definitive.
|
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 17:21:16
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Doesn't matter if you're applying the disembarkation mechanics or not. The passengers are considered to have disembarked, that means the restrictions on disembarking are in effect and may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model.
|
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 17:25:18
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*
|
don_mondo wrote:Doesn't matter if you're applying the disembarkation mechanics or not. The passengers are considered to have disembarked, that means the restrictions on disembarking are in effect and may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model.
Nope, it actually means nothing of the sort. The withint 1" is part of the disembark mechanics, so in order to apply it here you have to be using those mechanics, and you cn't use them in the case of a Vehicle Destroyed - explodes! result. I already explined why the use of 'disembarked' doesn't prove use of the disembarking mechanic too (see previous post).
That's sort of the center of the whole argument actually.
|
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 17:26:11
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant
|
That rule about being able to assault the former passengers isn't the rule that you consult when you place the passengers, though.
I'd be inclined to let the exploded vehicle's former occupants fit anywhere in the vehicle's footprint, because that's where the relevant rule says you have to put them.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 17:29:10
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
OK, whatever. People have askked for rules that say where the exploded result is either a) move or b) disemabrking. Two places in the main rules state that getting out of a destroyed vehicle (either result) is disembarking. If you still want to insist that a disembarked unit did not disembark, go for it. For me, it's settled. Outta here.
|
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 18:00:01
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Ian Sturrock wrote:I'd be inclined to let the exploded vehicle's former occupants fit anywhere in the vehicle's footprint, because that's where the relevant rule says you have to put them.
What?!? Follow the simply stated instructions? That's just crazy talk!
I'm with you. I don't understand this artificial need to apply rules for disembarking when the vehicle to disembark from no longer exists. There's two ways to get out of a vehicle: YOU move away from the vehicle or THE VEHICLE moves (in an explosive kind of way, in many small pieces) away from you. If it's the VEHICLE that's moving did you move? No. Are you disembarked? Yes.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 18:11:41
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant
|
"I did not leave the ship, sir. The ship left me." -- Charles Lightoller, RMS Titanic.
Yeah -- the vehicle no longer exists, so to my mind, you don't need to disembark from it...
I can see the arguments that go the other way, but given how simple the description of where you have to place the former passengers is, I don't really think they're valid.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 18:58:52
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*
|
don_mondo wrote:OK, whatever. People have askked for rules that say where the exploded result is either a) move or b) disemabrking. Two places in the main rules state that getting out of a destroyed vehicle (either result) is disembarking. If you still want to insist that a disembarked unit did not disembark, go for it. For me, it's settled. Outta here.
It says that the models are disembarked, yes, btu that's not the same as saying that the exploded! result on the damage table uses the mechanics for disembarking - which it plainly does not. So while you might find that a niggly distinction, I'm quite happy to keep pointing it out, and I'll add that if niggly distinctions aren't your cup of tea then YMDC must be awfully frustrating place for you to post.
|
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 19:03:00
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
FlingitNow wrote:
It might not be RaW but that is still the rules.
That's just... wow.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 19:06:02
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
OK, you pulled me back in. See, it's that niggling distinction that makes it work as I'm saying as opposed to the "just put them anywhere in the footprint" idea.
Does the unit count as having disembarked?
Yes
Does it matter how they arrived at the positions they occupy?
Nope.
Niggling distinction, doesn't matter how they got there, all that matters is that they're a disembarked unit.
All that matters is that they count as having disembarked and a disembarked model may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model. So yes, you follow the Exploded rules and place them in the footprint as opposed to performing a normal disembark move. That's all that it changes. Doesn't change that it's still a disembark and still abides by any other rules/restrictions that were not specifically mentioned as being changed.
For you to be correct, you have to show a specific exemption to the one inch rule (and there isn't one). otherwise, it's still in effect.
|
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 19:10:52
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
don_mondo wrote:For you to be correct, you have to show a specific exemption to the one inch rule (and there isn't one). otherwise, it's still in effect.
" The surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and then take a Pinning test."
There's your exception. If I can be "where the vehicle used to be" then I can be within 1" of where you are IF you models are within 1" of the vehicle when it explodes.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 19:12:56
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
don_mondo wrote: Does it matter how they arrived at the positions they occupy? Nope. All that matters is that they count as having disembarked and... may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model.
How can you even think this argument is logical? If they didn't arrive at their positions by disembarking, how do select parts of the disembarking rules suddenly apply post-placement? For you to be correct, you have to show a specific exemption to the one inch rule (and there isn't one). otherwise, it's still in effect.
No. No no no no no no no. That is not how RAW works. If you cannot prove that there is a 1" restriction, I do not have to prove that I override it. You cannot invoke the 1" restriction from the disembarking rules unless you can prove that the action being performed by placing the units counts as disembarking. You have not and cannot. You cannot invoke the 1" restriction from the movement rules unless you can prove that the action the units are performing when they are placed counts as moving. You have not and cannot. You must provide concrete proof from the 'explodes' rule, from rules it references, or from rules that specifically change or modify the specifics of the 'explodes' rule. You have not and cannot. You are quite simply and completely in the wrong by RAW.
|
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2009/12/17 19:24:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 19:21:48
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*
|
don_mondo wrote:OK, you pulled me back in. See, it's that niggling distinction that makes it work as I'm saying as opposed to the "just put them anywhere in the footprint" idea.
Does the unit count as having disembarked?
Yes
Does it matter how they arrived at the positions they occupy?
Nope.
Niggling distinction, doesn't matter how they got there, all that matters is that they're a disembarked unit.
All that matters is that they count as having disembarked and a disembarked model may not be placed within an inch of an enemy model. So yes, you follow the Exploded rules and place them in the footprint as opposed to performing a normal disembark move. That's all that it changes. Doesn't change that it's still a disembark and still abides by any other rules/restrictions that were not specifically mentioned as being changed.
YMDC is tough to let go of.  You use the phrase 'counts as disembarked' like it means something, but it doesn't. Go take a careful look at the rules for disembarking, specifically at the order of operations and the models necessary to use the mechanics. Then take a careful look at explodes!. You'll find you simply cannot use the disembark mechaincs in that case. You don't have a vehicle with access points or a hull. In fact, what you're suggesting actually breaks the disembarking rules. If you can't use the basic mechanic then you cannot enforce the restrictions placed on those mechanics.
don_mondo wrote:For you to be correct, you have to show a specific exemption to the one inch rule (and there isn't one). otherwise, it's still in effect.
No, I only have to show that there are exceptions to the one inch rule outside of the rules for assault, and I've already done that. The rules for ramming allow a model to move within 1" and stay there (even next to models with a WS), and those rules don't specifically exempt themselves from the general rule. That amounts to carte blanche for situations like this. It's not evidence that's it's specifically allowed here mind you, but it's evidence that we don't need a specific exemption in order for a specific rule to ignore the general 1" rule.
|
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 21:13:30
Subject: Re:Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Guardsman with Flashlight
|
So what are we going to do when the unit doesnt fit in the transports footprint. You can't put them in a big pile.
I still outright disagree that the unit is counted or should be counted as disembarking. It is a simple matter of two points - both of which are dot points, the best kind.
- There is no longer a vehicle to disembark from. You simply cannot use the disembarking mechanics without the vehicle.
- The rules specifically tell you to place the models in the footprint of the vehicle.
Besides the fact that the rules are quite clear on that - there is the problem of some units not fitting in the footprint of their transport. That is the only thing not covered by the rule as written IMO.
This 1 inch thing..... seriously..... the rules TELL you to place the models there - if there is an enemy within one inch so what? Where this matters it is mentioned in the rules.
Either the unit is forced directly into assault (by being within an inch of the enemy with no escape and therefore unable to do anything else) or is pinned, and the enemy can either assault, or get the hell outa dodge on their next turn.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/17 21:14:57
I am always right. I thought I was wrong this one time, but I was wrong. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 21:23:22
Subject: Re:Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
maxinstuff wrote:Besides the fact that the rules are quite clear on that - there is the problem of some units not fitting in the footprint of their transport. That is the only thing not covered by the rule as written IMO.
That's the only real question in my mind. Past precedent has been to count models that cannot fit in there as destroyed, but that's not spelled out in this edition of the rules. It's just a compromise I would use to keep the game moving.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 22:40:32
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
After plodding thru the semantics here, I have to say that Maxinstuff has it. Fill the footprint of the vehicle, and just get on with the game.
That does make it 'better' in some cases for the vehicle to 'explode!' than just be 'wrecked' - but I would usually prefer a 'weapon destroyed' result to a 'stunned' result also!
Usually enough of my poorly-armored Orks die in the explosion to fit easily. (And note to fellow Orks players - if you are worried about it - make bigger battlewagons & trucks! The new GW one is kind of small to fit 20 Orks in it's smoking ruins)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 22:59:02
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
There's one thing I think most people have missed. You do not have to fit a model's entire base in the footprint of the vehicle. You can have models lined up in the place that used to be the edges of the tank with their bases slightly within the original footprint. You can certainly fit 10 marines in the footprint of a Rhino this way.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 23:12:32
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
I'd be inclined to let the exploded vehicle's former occupants fit anywhere in the vehicle's footprint, because that's where the relevant rule says you have to put them. So your arguement means you can stack models as it doesn't specifically state you can't in this instance. Or obey unit coherency as it doesn't specifically state you have to any any of the normal rules regarding placement or movement of models? To be honest reading this thread the conclusion has to be: RaW Does not specifically state that the disembarking rules are in effect at the point that the models go from being embarked to being disembarked so you can assume that they aren't by RaW. However the rules of the game are not changed by a RaW interpretation and they are quite clear that the disembarking rules apply and the changes to those rules are specifically not in the description of the Vehicle explodes results for transports. So in a hypothetical situation you can argue the toss and symantecs that you are free to place the models anywhere in the foot print. Just like you can argue that placing a dive so the 6 is on the side and then rollling it onto the top counts as a valid dice role by RaW. However in a real game both are quite obviously ludicrous positions to try to hold. Automatically Appended Next Post: You can certainly fit 10 marines in the footprint of a Rhino this way.
Not if it surounded by Orks/'Nids (or indeed anything). Where does the rules state that you can place the models in this fashion? Only using the disembarking rules could you argue this and then we're back to the 1" restriction...
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/12/17 23:14:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/12/17 23:22:17
Subject: Transport exploded....Now what?
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
FlingitNow wrote: RaW Does not specifically state that the disembarking rules are in effect at the point that the models go from being embarked to being disembarked so you can assume that they aren't by RaW.
No. You are the one making an assumption, and assuming that the disembarking rules are somehow in affect when the book doesn't say that they are anywhere. FlingitNow wrote: However the rules of the game are not changed by a RaW interpretation and they are quite clear that the disembarking rules apply and the changes to those rules are specifically not in the description of the Vehicle explodes results for transports.
The rules of the game are RAW, there is no difference. When you agree to play a game of warhammer 40k with someone, you agree to play by the rules in the rulebook (with any specific changes you and your opponent agree to, and any specific interperetations of issues where strict RAW gives 2+ possible choices). Your definition of 'the rules of the game' is much more in line with How You Would Play It or Rules As Played or Rules As Intended, terms that are not RAW or the actual rules and ideas that cannot be used when arguing about actual RAW. Nowhere is the explodes result rule defined in writing as using disembarking for placing the units. Nowhere. You are making that up. You are quite literally completely fabricating this claim of a written connection that you claim is 'quite clear'. In order for you to be right by RAW, you must provide concrete proof from the 'explodes' rule, from rules it references internally, or from rules that specifically change or modify the specifics of the 'explodes' rule. You have not and cannot. FlingitNow wrote: So your arguement means you can stack models as it doesn't specifically state you can't in this instance. Or obey unit coherency as it doesn't specifically state you have to any any of the normal rules regarding placement or movement of models? ... So in a hypothetical situation you can argue the toss and symantecs that you are free to place the models anywhere in the foot print. Just like you can argue that placing a dive so the 6 is on the side and then rollling it onto the top counts as a valid dice role by RaW.
As I covered before, no. Placing is mentioned in the impassable terrain description, you cannot stack them. Stop trying to build a straw man argument about how undefined 'die rolling' is in the ruleset. Argue the point of contention, not its consequences or common sense or real world examples or any of the other deflection techniques you or other posters continue to attempt. That is not how YMDC works.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2009/12/17 23:35:11
|
|
 |
 |
|