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.

yakface wrote:
Page 67 of the rulebook (emphasis mine):

"If the vehicle has already moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase."


To me, the use of the term "any further" clearly indicates that disembarking is a special form of movement (as moving more would be 'further' movement). Therefore disembarking follows all the normal restrictions for movement unless specified otherwise, including the inability to move through enemy models.

So I naturally voted that the disembarking models would be destroyed in this situation.

I don't agree with your conclusion about disembarking being movement. The "any further" just means you cannot move them anymore because they already moved together with the vehicle.

The paragraph about disembarking from a vehicle that has not moved also contradicts your logic. You can never move a unit twice in the same phase, yet it's allowed to move normally after disembarking from a vehicle that has not moved during that phase. If disembarking was movent that would not be possible.

budro wrote:
I don't get it. Why is that a dick move? I mostly play friendly games - if I'm dumb enough to allow my transport to be surrounded, I deserve for it to get destroyed and lose the unit inside. Or do you think it's "friendly" and "fair" for say a unit of guardsmen to surround a LR loaded with termies, melta the LR and then stand there and get slaughtered by the termies the following round?

In what universe should guardsmen be able to prevent a terminator from going where ever he wants? Terminators literally laugh off the bulk of the guard squad's firepower. That doesn't require much interpretation - it is what they're frickin built for. It's using a game rule (preventing normal movement) to an end that is completely outside of the normal bounds of possibility (blowing up anything with anything else regardless of relative strength/toughness). It may be a long established tradition amongst some gamers, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense, particularly when you're looking at an emergency disembark where it's not following ANY of the normal rules for the situation - people are moving through the walls of the transport as if by magic.

Consider: What's actually happening during an emergency disembark? I believe that the troops aren't exiting the vehicle via the normal access points, they're blowing big holes in it from the inside and getting the hell out. Do you, ork grunt or vanilla Guardsman want to stand on the far side of a steel plate while it's exploding out towards you? I think that there's more than enough confusion and explosives involved in that effort to adequately explain what happened. People get stuck in the trap of thinking a close combat situation is a static moment on the field - it's not. The guys outside the transport are terribly vulnerable to the firepower used by those exiting the thing. It's enough of a job to avoid losing people without having to stand in front of a berserk marine or what have you. The force used to exit the vehicle adequately explains both why they can bypass the surrounding unit (unless it's piled several guys deep, I'm not saying that doesn't still apply, there are limits to the damage you can wreak here), and why they can't do anything after they exit - they need to recharge/rearm before they're combat-ready again.

I just think it's a shady rule, and regardless if its been happening since 3rd edition, I dont think GW really pays attention to it.

On top of what the above post said, this only happens on the result of a 5. On a 6 the vehicle explodes and you can easily place all your guys down. The people arguing about welding doors shut, putting guns into the vehicle and firing in, etc. You really think when the vehicle youre in EXPLODES that youre more likely to survive than if the vehicle stops moving?

The simple solution would be to allow your guys to stand on top of the wreckage, which is what Id think theyd do anyways.

Note: Im not saying this is how the rules work.

The crazy part about this argument is that the troops inside the vehicle, when you consider the situation outside the confines of the game, could almost certainly choose to cause the vehicle to explode at any time, at which point they'd be good to go for disembarking. How, I ask you, does that make any sense?

liquiddark wrote:
Consider: What's actually happening during an emergency disembark? I believe that the troops aren't exiting the vehicle via the normal access points, they're blowing big holes in it from the inside and getting the hell out. Do you, ork grunt or vanilla Guardsman want to stand on the far side of a steel plate while it's exploding out towards you? I think that there's more than enough confusion and explosives involved in that effort to adequately explain what happened. People get stuck in the trap of thinking a close combat situation is a static moment on the field - it's not. The guys outside the transport are terribly vulnerable to the firepower used by those exiting the thing. It's enough of a job to avoid losing people without having to stand in front of a berserk marine or what have you. The force used to exit the vehicle adequately explains both why they can bypass the surrounding unit (unless it's piled several guys deep, I'm not saying that doesn't still apply, there are limits to the damage you can wreak here), and why they can't do anything after they exit - they need to recharge/rearm before they're combat-ready again.

then consider the opposite, when you instead have a chimera with Guard inside and space marines on the outside.
based on this description how would the Guard escape the Marines?

And so they wouldn't - they're paralyzed for an entire turn. You turn and mow them down when your opportunity rolls around, which is not a terribly difficult sacrifice to make.

but based off of one scenario (destroyed in the transport) that's one turn of shooting/assault for at least one unit that could be used for something more productive

as opposed to the other scenario (units get out; emergency disembark; get pinned for the ED; and sit around)

Realism isn't generally a good basis for rules debates. That said, the concept being simulated is sound, and well-grounded in reality.

If you have a burning, about to explode personnel carrier completely surrounded by armed men, and the passengers have to make an emergency disembarkation, they will be functionally helpless and ripe for slaughter by the surrounding unit. While the general situation may break down a little in specific situations (like grots slaughtering Terminators), the general idea is absolutely legitimate.

About guys being pinned "until the end of the turn," p. 9 of the rulebook it defines "the turn" as the Player turn unless it says specifically game turn. The emergency disembarkation says "can't do anything for the rest of the turn." (p. 67) Therefore if it's your turn and you have all my rhino hatches surrounded and I emergency disembark out the front, I can move, shoot, etc. next turn unless someone can prove otherwise.

Edit: P. 95 also uses the same language of "can not move any further" in relation to DSing. It goes on to say how they shoot, "obviously counting as having moved in the previous movement phase." Do with that knowledge what you will.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:About guys being pinned "until the end of the turn," p. 9 of the rulebook it defines "the turn" as the Player turn unless it says specifically game turn. The emergency disembarkation says "can't do anything for the rest of the turn." (p. 67) Therefore if it's your turn and you have all my rhino hatches surrounded and I emergency disembark out the front, I can move, shoot, etc. next turn unless someone can prove otherwise.

This is correct.

well, your pinned unit stays pinned until the end of "your" turn.

and it wasn't "your" turn when "your unit" got pinned from the ED.

Pg. 2 of the 40K errata and FAQ
Q. If models disembark from a transport into
dangerous terrain, do they take a dangerous
terrain test? Unlike Pile-in or Consolidation
moves, disembarking does not specifically states
that it doesn't trigger dangerous terrain tests.
A. Dangerous terrain says you test for every
model that has 'entered, left or moved through'
the terrain. As there is no exception in the text,
disembarking models do have to test. However, if
they disembark at the beginning of their move
and then move after the disembarkation, only one
test is needed, not two.

If you had a land raider and you pushed it on top of a barbed wire fence (dangerous terrain) and then had the unit inside deploy on the other side of the fence would you say they have to take the difficult and dangerous terrain tests or not?

If any of you say they would have to since they ARE moving THROUGH it.. .then in the instance of emergency deployment here no one could escape since, for the purposes of movement, not only do you have to stay 1" away, but models are considered impassable terrain.

So.. answer the question people. Are the same people wanting this freebie escape also going to ninja over the fence?

I say Jack doesn't jump over this hill, this deployment is epic fail.

The Dragon wrote:If you had a land raider and you pushed it on top of a barbed wire fence (dangerous terrain) and then had the unit inside deploy on the other side of the fence would you say they have to take the difficult and dangerous terrain tests or not?

If any of you say they would have to since they ARE moving THROUGH it.. .then in the instance of emergency deployment here no one could escape since, for the purposes of movement, not only do you have to stay 1" away, but models are considered impassable terrain.

I'm confused. How are they moving through the fence if the Land Raider is sitting on top of it?

A couple of points here -
1. Why attempt to win by nerfing and rules lawyers your way through a game. Fight it out and have fun by BS, S vs T and Save!
2. The rules are not written well. They are not written a congruent fashion and the plain English that was used conveys meaning in unintended ways. Refer to point 1.
3. Have you ever been in the quandary where you are the first car at a red light and you have cars to the left and right of you... an ambulance or police car comes up siren wailing behind you and they are coming fast. You now have a choice - Do you hold your ground knowing that you are behind the red light and unable to move left or right? Do you move forward, breaking the law of moving ahead of a red light and risk life and limb by entering the intersection. Or do you just claim you have been destroyed surrounded by the moral and legal enigma of what to do?

The attempted abuse of the rules occurring here is for people to claim that 25mm bases != 1 inch diameter.

Which is technically correct. However, for the remainder of the game I would ensure that my opponent measured all of his ranges with range-finder lasers, just to make sure he got it right.

I thought they end up on top of the wrecked rhino? 'Emergency Disembarkation' is what it's called, no?

willydstyle wrote:Here is the situation: a rhino is surrounded completely by models with 25mm bases. One inch is 25.4 mm.

The attacking models destroy the rhino with a "vehicle destroyed-wrecked" result.

By the rules, a model has to be placed within 2" of an access point in order to disembark, or if they cannot use an access point, they simply use the vehicle's hull. Since the attacking minis must be in base-contact with the vehicle, the area that models cannot disembark into because of enemy models ends slightly less than 2" from the vehicle's hull.

Because simply touching the 2" measurement from the disembark point (or hull) counts as being "within 2 inches" then models are mathematically capable of disembarking on the other side of the enemy models' bases.

This seems like a strange situation, however, and I don't think a lot of people would play it this way.

So, how will you play it?

Are the models destroyed, or are they allowed to disembark on the other side of the enemy's bases?

If I were TO, I would go for destroyed. I see what you're saying about disembarking on the other side of the models... but the poorly written rules, I think, were meant to create a condition where the models would be destroyed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
wait... um...

is what I posted an example of RAI?

Trasvi wrote:The attempted abuse of the rules occurring here is for people to claim that 25mm bases != 1 inch diameter.

Which is technically correct. However, for the remainder of the game I would ensure that my opponent measured all of his ranges with range-finder lasers, just to make sure he got it right.

I agree, it is a particularly bad idea to mix metric and english units. Remember the Mars Climate Orbiter?

ceddyn wrote:
I don't agree with your conclusion about disembarking being movement. The "any further" just means you cannot move them anymore because they already moved together with the vehicle.

The paragraph about disembarking from a vehicle that has not moved also contradicts your logic. You can never move a unit twice in the same phase, yet it's allowed to move normally after disembarking from a vehicle that has not moved during that phase. If disembarking was movent that would not be possible.

That's what "further" means. It means the unit had to have already done some sort of movement to be able to not move any "further".

There is absolutely no rule which prevents a unit from moving twice in the same phase. . .only what is allowed by normal movement. Deployment from a vehicle is not normal movement and the disembarking rules explain that the unit is allowed to disembark and then additionally make its normal move, so it can.

Just as if a unit had a special rule that allowed it to move twice in the movement phase, it would then be allowed to.

The fact is, the use of the word "further" absolutely indicates that a disembarking unit has indeed "moved."

What I should have said for the LR was that it had moved right up to the fence. I meant that the fence was directly in front of the front hatch, flush against the vehicle. Thus, to deploy would necessitate moving through both dangerous and difficult terrain in that instance.

I feel that overall, in this entire argument, the point of distances, base width, etc. is all utterly pointless since none of the attempted escapees can move through or over the models directly surrounding the vehicle anyway.

Really, that's as far as the discussion should've gone IF we're dealing with the full-coverage worst case scenario forced-disembark that was theorized at the beginning.

BTW, about the discussion on whether disembarking is really a 'move' or not? Check the FAQ I posted earlier it says that the unit models have to take the test. Guess What people? You only have to take the test when you MOVE into dangerous/difficult terrain. Thus, once again-- there is no debate here-- you cannot move through enemy models in a disembarkment to get to the space on their other side.

The safe disembark is a lie: The unit is dead: The Move is made of Epic Fail.

The Dragon wrote:What I should have said for the LR was that it had moved right up to the fence. I meant that the fence was directly in front of the front hatch, flush against the vehicle. Thus, to deploy would necessitate moving through both dangerous and difficult terrain in that instance.

If only the actual fence is dangerous terrain, you're going to get the same answer as you would get for the thread's original question.

I feel that overall, in this entire argument, the point of distances, base width, etc. is all utterly pointless since none of the attempted escapees can move through or over the models directly surrounding the vehicle anyway.

Really, that's as far as the discussion should've gone IF we're dealing with the full-coverage worst case scenario forced-disembark that was theorized at the beginning.

That really just comes down to the sort of game you're playing. Some people like to play the game as a sort of simulation, where the rules can be bent or ignored if playing it differently makes more sense from that player's real-world perspective. Others play it as a set of rules that sometimes work in slightly abstract ways that can be construed as nonsensical if you apply real-world logic to them.

To that second sort of player, the discussion is only over if it can be proved that disembarking is movement... which it would appear still sees some people undecided.

BTW, about the discussion on whether disembarking is really a 'move' or not? Check the FAQ I posted earlier it says that the unit models have to take the test. Guess What people? You only have to take the test when you MOVE into dangerous/difficult terrain.

This is technically incorrect. You take a Dangerous terrain test if you enter, leave or move through the terrain. If the rules grant a way of entering the terrain without it actually counting as movement, then you have not moved but have entered the terrain and so still need to take the test.

I'm with wildstyle and friends on this one. I'm not going to say more than that because all sides of this argument have been said to death. I'm also a little sad to see people responding without actually reading the whole, or even the first page of this thread. It is a pain to read 4 pages of posts but if you want to respond on page 4 you need to do it.

@marcus: "Why attempt to win by nerfing and rules lawyering your way through a game. Fight it out and have fun by BS, S vs T, and Save!". We're discussing the rules so people can play by the rules when this situation comes up, not trying to get around anything or bully people into playing by our set of rules. If that is how you really feel then this entire section of the forums is probably not for you.

Halsfield wrote:I'm with wildstyle and friends on this one. I'm not going to say more than that because all sides of this argument have been said to death. I'm also a little sad to see people responding without actually reading the whole, or even the first page of this thread. It is a pain to read 4 pages of posts but if you want to respond on page 4 you need to do it.

@marcus: "Why attempt to win by nerfing and rules lawyering your way through a game. Fight it out and have fun by BS, S vs T, and Save!". We're discussing the rules so people can play by the rules when this situation comes up, not trying to get around anything or bully people into playing by our set of rules. If that is how you really feel then this entire section of the forums is probably not for you.

Honestly, I play it that the unit is destroyed. However, I don't think it's what the rules say. If my opponent wanted to play strictly by the rules it would be bad sportsmanship to play otherwise.

Lacross wrote:well, your pinned unit stays pinned until the end of "your" turn.

and it wasn't "your" turn when "your unit" got pinned from the ED.

Where does it say they're pinned anywhere?

He should have said possibly pinned as you have to take a pinning test on an ED.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Lacross wrote:well, your pinned unit stays pinned until the end of "your" turn.

and it wasn't "your" turn when "your unit" got pinned from the ED.

Where does it say they're pinned anywhere?

sbeasley wrote:He should have said possibly pinned as you have to take a pinning test on an ED.

The point that Cannerus is trying to make is to clear up the misconception that performing an emergency disembark pins the unit. You have to take a pinning test any time a vehicle is destroyed. There are times that you might perform an emergency disembark on your own turn (if a vehicles hatches are covered and you *have* to get out of the transport) in which case they may do nothing more that turn (as defined on page 9 as "player turn"). If you are forced to perform an emergency disembark during your opponent's turn, then the unit may do nothing for the rest of *that* turn, but they are not pinned.

Or course the book also states.

ED states
but the unit can’t do anything else for the rest of the turn

Does this mean if they get assaulted they can't defend themselves?

failing a pinning test says it just going to ground.

going to ground says The drawback of going to ground is that the unit can do nothing until the end of its following turn.

I can see that if you make a ED in your turn it prevents that unit from doing something else that turn to prevent unscrupulous people from ED from the front of a vehicle with no doors in the front that had not moved and then trying to move normally to gain extra distance.

"Whilst it has gone to ground the unit may do nothing of its own volition, but will react normally if affected by enemy actions. . . If assaulted, the unit will fight as usual. . ."

Right but I'm talking about what ED states. It hasn't been pinned, but can still do nothing that turn. What happens in that case?

Oooops, misread that then.
I understand now.

That is pretty funny, more reading!