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.

The answer is yes. Because you can be disembarked Which is having left a vehicle without making a Disembark move. The same you can have moved 6" you moved but you don't get a cover save the same as if you moved 24" on a bike. The state of being is the same the method of getting there is different.

ChrisCP wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

Yes, by no longer being embarked. being embarked means one has boarded a 'transport' for a journey, disembarking is to remove or unload passengers or goods from a 'transport' if you remove the vehicle however - you have not disembarked (removing the cargo from the vehicle)

What I don't understand is how the inclusion of 'disembark' in the destroyed - wrecked results, is convincing people the the words absence from 'destroyed - explodes' is irrelivent.

TheBlackVanguard wrote:The answer is yes. Because you can be disembarked Which is having left a vehicle without making a Disembark move. The same you can have moved 6" you moved but you don't get a cover save the same as if you moved 24" on a bike. The state of being is the same the method of getting there is different.

The explosion removes them from the vehicle.

and you are both totally ignoring the "forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed" on p.66 if the transport is destroyed the unit inside is forced to disembark this includes wrecked AND explodes.

also the rules on page 67 under disembarking say if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

DeathReaper wrote:
The explosion removes them from the vehicle.

and you are both totally ignoring the "forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed" on p.66 if the transport is destroyed the unit inside is forced to disembark this includes wrecked AND explodes.

also the rules on page 67 under disembarking say if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

And you, repeatedly, have ignored the large holes in your argument.

That sentence does not say they are forced to disembark. It says that they MAY be forced to disembark. A result clearly satisfied by the wrecked rules.
Continuing to claim that it forces them to use the disembarking rules (which is impossible, as well as unsupportable) despite it clearly not saying that is not making your arguments more convincing.

Those rules on page 67? They're for disembarking, an action which the passengers never performed and that you cannot show they have performed.
How anyone can read "After disembarking, these models may shoot (counting as moving), but may not assault" and say 'that doesn't only apply to disembarking models!' is beyond me.
Continually referencing these unapplicable rules (especially while misleadingly selectively quoting them) isn't proving your point either.

Gorkamorka wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
The explosion removes them from the vehicle.

and you are both totally ignoring the "forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed" on p.66 if the transport is destroyed the unit inside is forced to disembark this includes wrecked AND explodes.

also the rules on page 67 under disembarking say if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

And you, repeatedly, have ignored the large holes in your argument.

That sentence does not say they are forced to disembark. It says that they MAY be forced to disembark. A result clearly satisfied by the wrecked rules.
Continuing to claim that it forces them to use the disembarking rules (which is impossible, as has been shown) despite it clearly not saying that is not making your arguments more convincing.

Those rules on page 67? They're for disembarking, an action which the passengers never performed and that you cannot show they have performed.
Continually referencing unapplicable rules isn't proving your point either.

Read it again. "...May embark and then be forced to disembark IF their transport is destroyed." I.E. if their transport is destroyed they are FORCED to disembark. does not say May be forced to disembark.

Read disembark again, "a unit that begins its movement phase aboard a vehicle can disembark before or after it has moved"
the bullet point then says if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

and the explodes result says they suffer hits equal to the number of models embarked, and the surviving passengers (who by default have been forced to disembark, from what we learned earlier on p66) are placed where the vehicle used to be. (Hole addressed)

to try and assault, when you began the units movement embarked on a vehicle and the vehicle has moved, is cheating. unless it is an assault vehicle (since assault vehicle says you can assault out of it)

DeathReaper wrote:
Read it again. "...May embark and then be forced to disembark IF their transport is destroyed." I.E. if their transport is destroyed they are FORCED to disembark. does not say May be forced to disembark.

Okay, I read it again.
It still says "may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed"
It still does not say that they are forced to disembark for every destroyed result, or even for any of them. It simply gives them permission to, ovverriding the previous disallowance.

DeathReaper wrote:
Read disembark again, "a unit that begins its movement phase aboard a vehicle can disembark before or after it has moved"
the bullet point then says if the vehicle has already moved the passengers may disembark, but not move any further in that movement phase (the fact that you guys say they do not disembark makes no difference, they still are not able to move if the transport moved, weather they disembarked or not. It allows them to disembark, and disallows movement) and goes on to say they may shoot , but may not assault (again same reason as before, they are disallowed from moving or assaulting if the vehicle moves)

I read it again.
It still says "may disembark, but not move any further". And the sentence after it still says "After disembarking, these models may shoot (counting as moving), but may not assault".
You havn't shown anything here that makes these rules somehow apply outside disembarking, sorry.

DeathReaper wrote:
and the explodes result says they suffer hits equal to the number of models embarked, and the surviving passengers (who by default have been forced to disembark, from what we learned earlier on p66) are placed where the vehicle used to be. (Hole addressed)

How, exactly? The fact that the passengers are embarked before the explosion was never in question, and proves nothing.
Then saying they "have been forced to dismbark" like you've proven it (which is the entire point of contention, and still wholly unproven) and using that as your proof is just... no.

TheBlackVanguard wrote:The answer is yes. Because you can be disembarked Which is having left a vehicle without making a Disembark move. The same you can have moved 6" you moved but you don't get a cover save the same as if you moved 24" on a bike. The state of being is the same the method of getting there is different.

But no one is claiming anything of the sort, and moving 6" is very different from moving 24". The discussion is whether models being embarked on a vehicle, and the rules referring to them as "disembarked" in the situation in which they find themselves, have in fact "disembarked."

The difficulty is in telling someone that disembarked =/= disembarked.

Inside a vehicle to no longer inside a vehicle = disembarked, as outlined on page 67 in both Vehicle Destroyed descriptions.

Monster Rain wrote:
But no one is claiming anything of the sort, and moving 6" is very different from moving 24". The discussion is whether models being embarked on a vehicle, and the rules referring to them as "disembarked" in the situation in which they find themselves, have in fact "disembarked."

The difficulty is in telling someone that disembarked =/= disembarked.

Inside a vehicle to no longer inside a vehicle = disembarked, as outlined on page 67 in both Vehicle Destroyed descriptions.

?Are you intentionally ignoring answers to you questions, or was it rhetoric and you've already made up your mind?

ChrisCP wrote:
Yes, by no longer being embarked. being embarked means one has boarded a 'transport' for a journey, disembarking is to remove or unload passengers or goods from a 'transport' if you remove the vehicle however - you have not disembarked (removing the cargo from the vehicle)

What I don't understand is how the inclusion of 'disembark' in the destroyed - wrecked results, is convincing people the the words absence from 'destroyed - explodes' is irrelivent.

Again disembation is a process if one does not follow that process one hasn't disembarked, if you can show me anywhere in the 'Destroyed - explodes' section where they follow a disembarking process?

Guys - give up, there are only so many ways you can ask people to show why, when a unit has not followed ANY of the rules for Disembark, they are prohibited from assaulting as if they HAD used the rules for Disembarking.

You can be disembarked (as in, no longer on a vehicle) despite having never followed the Disembark rules. This is so obviously true yet apparently not for some.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guys - give up, there are only so many ways you can ask people to show why, when a unit has not followed ANY of the rules for Disembark, they are prohibited from assaulting as if they HAD used the rules for Disembarking.

You can be disembarked (as in, no longer on a vehicle) despite having never followed the Disembark rules. This is so obviously true yet apparently not for some.

I thought mostly it became pointless back on page one when people tried to claim ". . . that disembarking means leaving a vehicle, but that leaving a vehicle is not disembarking, despite th[e] fact that having left a vehicle you have disembarked . . ." by arguing imaginary Font Size, non-existent Character Capitalization, and Relativism.

Disembark is a rule set for how you exit a vehicle. That is capitalised as it has a specific function in the game (for example it is a *move*, and explodes is not a move but a placement)

Disembarked is the state of no longer being in a vehicle, but you do not need to have followed the Disembark rules for this to happen - as in Destroyed - Explodes where you follow not one single rule for disembark.

Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

"...the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers."

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

"...the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers."

Do we have an echo in here?

We have told you time and time again. To be disembarked is NOT THE SAME as Disembarking.

I'm with Gwar! on this one.

If you are disembarked, you have no necessarily performed the action of disembarking.

You can be "no longer inside of" a vehicle without having exited the vehicle. If the vehicle no longer exists around you, but you never performed the willful action of exiting it, therefore you may be described as "disembarked," but you never were "disembarking."

It's a minor point of semantics and open to interpretation, but I personally feel that infantry that just had their vehicle disappear from around them may assault if they pass their pinning test.

I think the bottom line here is, "discuss it with your opponent or TO to avoid getting the cold shoulder from either."

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

"...the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers."

Do we have an echo in here?

We have told you time and time again. To be disembarked is NOT THE SAME as Disembarking.

Well, see, you'd have to have the authority to totally change the definition of words for that gimmick to work. So yes, you've stated your opinion, but it is wrong.

I agree that it's not the normal method of disembarking, but the models go from inside a vehicle to outside a vehicle and are referred to as "disembarked" in the rule that I've quoted two sentences later.

SaintHazard wrote:I think the bottom line here is, "discuss it with your opponent or TO to avoid getting the cold shoulder from either."

Hey now! We have reached an accord!

It does not follow the defined process of Disembark, so any restrict related to following the Disembark process is irrelevant.
As has been explained many times MR you are wrong...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Disembark is a rule set for how you exit a vehicle. That is capitalised as it has a specific function in the game (for example it is a *move*, and explodes is not a move but a placement)

Disembarked is the state of no longer being in a vehicle, but you do not need to have followed the Disembark rules for this to happen - as in Destroyed - Explodes where you follow not one single rule for disembark.

Please, show how you follow the Disembark rules in Explodes despite a notable absence of either the word "disembark" or any of the actions related to Disembark.

Disembarking (as the proper noun for the rule) uses disembarking the action for it's definition. At no point in the definition of Disembarking does is fail to define leaving a vehicle as the act of disembarking, mostly by using the word deploy.

In the section on Vehicle - Explodes! it refers to placing (several people including you note the use of the word "place" instead of the word "deploy") the model in a certain location, this simply modifies the allowed location(s) to on the one hand disembark on the other hand to be placed (I think the part in italic accurately describes both sides), i.e. where the vehicle was instead of "within 2" of a door".

So, the question then is: "Is placing a model that was in a vehicle on the table mean you have deployed it?" I think this is a fair description of the point at which the contention enters the topic. I am of the opinion place = deploy and you are of the opposite, that place /= deploy. In all fairness I think the onus is on proponents of the side I am on to prove place = deploy and not on your side.

Lets look for the definition of the action "deploy" then. "Once all of the units have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving it onto the table as described later. Then he picks another unit and deploys it, and so on until all units are on the table. The player may then proceed to move his other units as normal."p94 BRB last paragraph left side. The meaning of the action deploy as defined by usage. Under the heading "Arriving from reserve" same page right side we have: "When a reserve unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player's own table edge (unless it's deep striking or outflanking). Each model's move is measured from the edge of the battlefield, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn and moved as normal. This means that it is incorrect to place a model on the board touching the edge and then move it - this wound mean it moved too far, especially in the case of a large vehicle."p94 BRB That's a bit shaky how about one more? Under the heading "Deep Strike" page 95: "Roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deply them as follows. [paragraph break] First place one model from a the unit anywhere on the table . . . "p95 BRB end of first/start of second paragraphs. Subsequent paragraphs do go on to interchange "place" and "deploy".

"Deploy", "moves onto the table", and "places" are used interchangeably. Ultimately the word deploy is not a Proper Noun lacking correct capitalization but just regular english word used instead of a different regular english word, e.g. place.

You can not be placed on the board from off the board (be it from reserve or from vehicle) without deploying, you can not deploy from a vehicle without disembarking, and you can not be disembarked without disembarking as governed by Disembarking with the additional modification Vehicle - Explodes! adds to it. Placed on the board by explosion, deployed by explosion, disembarked by explosion.

Macbeth should get his money back, that apparition was incompetent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As has been explained many times MR you are wrong...

Your continued insistence on this isn't really helping convince me. Bare Assertion fallacies rarely do.

Anyway, considering your entire argument is based on semantic distortion of the word "disembark" I don't really see this being resolved.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guys - give up, there are only so many ways you can ask people to show why, when a unit has not followed ANY of the rules for Disembark, they are prohibited from assaulting as if they HAD used the rules for Disembarking.

You can be disembarked (as in, no longer on a vehicle) despite having never followed the Disembark rules. This is so obviously true yet apparently not for some.

+1

I'm sure my movement example would work, but they unfortunately thought I was an idiot and arguing about it as a separate issue.

MR - you missed out all the points explaining why you are wrong, and simply quoted out of context. Bravo, you get one internets!

Place is not a move, Disembarking froma vehicle is. Just that is enough to show the two are not the same.

Just my 2c:

I think that the passengers are not disembarked when their vehicle explodes. Think about it.
They are not getting out of the vehicle; the vehicle is just ceasing to exist in a coherent form.
They are standing in a transport at one moment, and in a crater the next. It was not them who did the leaving.

Also the 'Destroyed - Wrecked' result clearly states that any passengers ''must immediately disembark'',
while in the 'Destroyed - Explodes' result there is a marked absence of the same wording.

However, I think that this really doesn't matter. Unless your own transport somehow explodes
during your turn, the discussion is moot. (By the way, does anybody know how your transport could
explode during your own turn?)

When the transport explodes, it will very, very likely be in your opponent's turn. If your opponent assaults the passengers,
they can fight back, and your enemy will likely be reduced to Initiative 1 for assaulting through difficult terrain (the crater.)

In the very likely case that the transport exploded during your opponent's turn, you may assault freely during your own turn
(assuming, of course, that you do not fire RF or Heavy weapons, or incur other assaulting prohibitions, and also that you are not locked in combat).
This is because, regardless of whether you disembarked or not, you did it during your opponent's turn, not during your own.
Since you did not disembark during your turn, you may assault during your turn.

Cayar wrote:(By the way, does anybody know how your transport could explode during your own turn?)

Ramming. Pie-Plate Scattering. Magic.

Edit: Oh, and Death or Glory.

Hmm. I had not considered those possibilities. Thanks.

Almost a year and not much has changed.

Explodes gives rules to delineate how to disembark models. It is correct to assume they are not the same rules, or they would not need reprinted.
The repeated(ly glossed over) implication is that "(either result)" is not a rule.
No one has pointed out why--Gorkamorka came closest to convincing me with:

Gorkamorka wrote:Are you saying that this language ovverides the actual language in the explodes result rules? Explodes does not use disembarking.

To which the obvious answer was, "no, you have it backwards". The actual language in "Wrecked" is used to disembark models from "either result"--one of which happens to use the less specific, more general rules for all disembarkation.

Also, has anyone on the "Not disembarking" side said whether the unit can be assaulted by the unit that shot the transports?
Or (much less likely) is the squad that fires allowed to shoot at the dis. . .no longer embarked squad?
If so, aplogies for missing it.

Gwar! wrote:

Cayar wrote:(By the way, does anybody know how your transport could explode during your own turn?)

Ramming. Pie-Plate Scattering. Magic.

Edit: Oh, and Death or Glory.

And Deepstrike (looking at you, landraiders)!

All that said, I play it however my opponent reads it.
The rules have no bearing on my army.

kirsanth wrote:The actual language in "Wrecked" is used to disembark models from "either result"--one of which happens to use the less specific, more general rules for all disembarkation.

No, the two results' effects on passengers are mutally exclusive.

kirsanth wrote:
Also, has anyone on the "Not disembarking" side said whether the unit can be assaulted by the unit that shot the transports?
Or (much less likely) is the squad that fires allowed to shoot at the dis. . .no longer embarked squad?
If so, aplogies for missing it.

p. 67, Col. 2, Para. 6. The firing unit may not fire on both the transport and then the passengers. It may however assault the passengers if it is allowed.
EDIT: It should be noted that the above line is a paraphrase.

Cayar wrote:p. 67, Col. 2, Para. 6. The firing unit may not fire on both the transport and then the passengers. It may however assault the passengers if it is allowed.
EDIT: It should be noted that the above line is a paraphrase.

Editing as I totally miswrote that.
The assault part specifies now disembarked passengers.

The shooting part says the occupants cannot "then" be shot seperately.

Regarding the topic's actual question: The unit may assault at if it disembarks from any of the vehicle's access points. The discussion at hand is relevant, since if the rules are interpreted that you are disembarked from the vehicle on an explodes result, then you certainly aren't disembarking from one of the access points, and as such you can't assault.

Kirsanth: Destroyed - wrecked and Destroyed - explodes! are distinct separate paragraphs and there is no cross-referencing between them. One is not a special case of the other. "Either result" is something you must specify, I can't find those words in that context.

The unit which is now out of the vehicle is not treated any differently from the point they leave the vehicle than other units that are represented on the board. You do not need and you do not get special permission to assault this unit.

Edit: yes, it did take more than 20 minutes to formulate this reply

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

That is a philosophical question. Let me pose counter-questions. Answer them with exceeding care and reflect on why you answered and, above all, how you answered:

Can a model be deployed on the table without first deploying?
Can something be dead without first dying?
Can a person live without first being born?

Mahtamori wrote:

Kirsanth: Destroyed - wrecked and Destroyed - explodes! are distinct separate paragraphs and there is no cross-referencing between them. One is not a special case of the other. "Either result" is something you must specify, I can't find those words in that context.

The unit which is now out of the vehicle is not treated any differently from the point they leave the vehicle than other units that are represented on the board. You do not need and you do not get special permission to assault this unit.

The note on page 67 covers both of those.
"However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by an ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers."

Units that shoot can only assault the unit they shot--except in this case they are allowed to shoot the "now disembarked" passengers.
So either they cannot be assaulted, or they disembarked.

Mahtamori wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

That is a philosophical question. Let me pose counter-questions. Answer them with exceeding care and reflect on why you answered and, above all, how you answered:

Can a model be deployed on the table without first deploying?
Can something be dead without first dying?
Can a person live without first being born?

You must first delineate the meaning of deploy, deploying, dead, dying, live, and born with respect to the questions as asked (please don't and stay on topic by using "disembarked" and disembarking") in the same fashion that Disembark, Disembarking, and Disembarked have been in this thread via the BRB and dictionary with respect to the specific topic at hand, assaulting after explodes. The BRB interchanges "place", "deploy", and "moves onto the table" in later sections of the book. In the Disembarking section the word "deploy" alone is used, but so what? We do not have license to imagine the word has any meaning other then the standard dictionary ascribes to it as appropriate to the context of 40K and the unit/transport combo in the absence of RaW changing its meaning. RaW does clarify it's meaning though, by re-enforcing it through the use of equivalent words/phrases later on, one of which is also used in Vehicle - Explodes!

@ kirsanth: I knew it was in there but I couldn't find it. Can you give me the page number for only being allowed to assault what you've shot so I can mark it in my physical copy (acrobat reader doesn't allow it in my electronic one :( )?

Leez wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Can one be "disembarked" without first "disembarking"?

The fact that I just had to type that makes me sad.

That is a philosophical question. Let me pose counter-questions. Answer them with exceeding care and reflect on why you answered and, above all, how you answered:

Can a model be deployed on the table without first deploying?
Can something be dead without first dying?
Can a person live without first being born?

You must first delineate the meaning of deploy, deploying, dead, dying, live, and born with respect to the questions as asked (please don't and stay on topic by using "disembarked" and disembarking") in the same fashion that Disembark, Disembarking, and Disembarked have been in this thread via the BRB and dictionary with respect to the specific topic at hand, assaulting after explodes. The BRB interchanges "place", "deploy", and "moves onto the table" in later sections of the book. In the Disembarking section the word "deploy" alone is used, but so what? We do not have license to imagine the word has any meaning other then the standard dictionary ascribes to it as appropriate to the context of 40K and the unit/transport combo in the absence of RaW changing its meaning. RaW does clarify it's meaning though, by re-enforcing it through the use of equivalent words/phrases later on, one of which is also used in Vehicle - Explodes!

Please stay on topic. My questions are rhetorical, not literal.

Being disembarked does not, by any means, constitute that you have taken the actions of disembarking. It's language, not computer syntax.

Actually, when the term philosophical came up I took stock of what I was wasting my time doing and did something else.

Disembarked = Disembarked. To suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, bearding. Discuss it with your opponent, OP. If that fails, have your TO or LGS house rule it. Good night, and good luck.