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.

What rules do you follow to remove a model from play that's off the table? Could you cite them for me?

Sang Priests don't have any rule excluding the bubble while in vehicles, but your rule makes it not work.

And you haven't cited once - despite repeated requests - where the restriction to the shooting phase is in that FAQ. Posting it again is worthless.

I think that, with laws, a rule is only as good as the spirit in which it is written.

There are tons of examples in the rulebook where GW outright states that some things are done within the game to represent something in the battle that can't physically be represented with inanimate plastic models. When I embark a squad of marines onto a Rhino, they are not teleporting back to the strike cruiser. They're taking a seat in the Rhino. Since I can't smash a plastic figure into a plastic Rhino with no doors or space to fit them, I set them aside or "remove them from the table". Because where else would I put them on the table? I can't have the models stay where they are AND have them be inside a transport. Removing embarked units from the table is a necessary step because of the physical limitations of using plastic models to REPRESENT a PRETEND battle.

BRB p 13
Wobbly Model Syndrome
"In cases like this we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location."

BRB p. 21
When are models in Cover?
"This is intentionally generous, and it represents the fact that the warrior, unlike the model, will be actively trying to take cover..."

BRB p 24
Remove Casualties
"Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers. This may seem slightly strange, but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models. In reality the warriors, both the firers and the targets, would be moving around and real bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting or simply going through covering terrain!"

BRB p. 36
Assaulting through cover
"...warriors who are assaulting through cover are subject to deadly salvoes of close range fire as they slowly struggle to get to grips with their foe and may be ambushed by foes that are ready for them. To represent this, if an assaulting unit..."

BRB p. 39
Allocating wounds
"...all of the models in the target unit can be hit, wounded and killed, including those that are not engaged. This represents the fact that each fighter is contributing his shots and blows to the swirling combat while warriors are rushing forward to replace their comrades that fall under the blows of the enemy."

GW has a long history of poorly-written and vague rules. The rulebook does, however, do a great job of explaining how things in a pretend battle are represented using our models and terrain. I can't comprehend the rigidity of someone who reads "remove from the table" as anything other than "set aside for now" when talking about embarkation. How can you or anyone you play with even enjoy the game if you need explicit, written permission from GW for every move you make? Wouldn't it be simpler to think through things logically about what the writers of the rules intended and the reasoning behind those rules?

Not to mention the long list of rules for which the embarked models count as being in play, and the rulebook tells us how to handle measuring for them.

Page 66 telling us that their radius powers still work, and are measured from the edge of the hull. An embarked unit being able to hold an objective, again measured from the edge of the hull. An embarked Aspiring Champion being eligible to be possessed by a Greater Daemon, which is then placed within 2" of a hatch. Etc., etc.

The FAQ answer is just telling you that the REASON the unit can shoot at a different target from the vehicle is always a separate unit, and they just coexist positionally while the unit is embarked.

I was reading the SM FAQ and came across something that could pertain to this as well. For Vortex of Doom, if libby fails psychic test, you place the blast marker over his head and it does not scatter.

SM FAQ states that when the libby is embarked on a transport and fails the psychic test for Vortex of Doom, you place the blast marker over the vehicle the libby is embarked in.

Clearly, you do this because the librarian is inside the transport.

Nivek5150 wrote:I was reading the SM FAQ and came across something that could pertain to this as well. For Vortex of Doom, if libby fails psychic test, you place the blast marker over his head and it does not scatter.

SM FAQ states that when the libby is embarked on a transport and fails the psychic test for Vortex of Doom, you place the blast marker over the vehicle the libby is embarked in.

Clearly, you do this because the librarian is inside the transport.

Poppy cock clearly the libby is in the pocket of warp space inside the vehicle that makes him shoot from it but not get shot in return!?!?!?!

To say my KFF does not work from inside a vehicle is funny. to say my weird boy can not blow up his own vehicle with 'eadbanger while embarked also is funny. so to GOi out of it sure why not

Nivek5150 wrote:I think that, with laws, a rule is only as good as the spirit in which it is written.

There are tons of examples in the rulebook where GW outright states that some things are done within the game to represent something in the battle that can't physically be represented with inanimate plastic models. When I embark a squad of marines onto a Rhino, they are not teleporting back to the strike cruiser. They're taking a seat in the Rhino. Since I can't smash a plastic figure into a plastic Rhino with no doors or space to fit them, I set them aside or "remove them from the table". Because where else would I put them on the table? I can't have the models stay where they are AND have them be inside a transport. Removing embarked units from the table is a necessary step because of the physical limitations of using plastic models to REPRESENT a PRETEND battle.

You have the right of it, good Sir. Sometimes a model has to be placed off the table, while we still pretend it's right there in the transport. Any effect it is allowed to use will require us to once again pretend that the model is in that transport despite physically being elsewhere.

So on topic, while the libby model isn't physically in the transport you can surely also pretend to remove him from it once he uses GoI.

Mannahnin wrote:Not to mention the long list of rules for which the embarked models count as being in play, and the rulebook tells us how to handle measuring for them.

Page 66 telling us that their radius powers still work, and are measured from the edge of the hull. An embarked unit being able to hold an objective, again measured from the edge of the hull. An embarked Aspiring Champion being eligible to be possessed by a Greater Daemon, which is then placed within 2" of a hatch. Etc., etc.

The FAQ answer is just telling you that the REASON the unit can shoot at a different target from the vehicle is always a separate unit, and they just coexist positionally while the unit is embarked.

And thats great, lots of special rules defining how bubble effects work when embarked. GoI isn't a bubble power and I don't think anyone has been saying that the models are not in play, merely not "on the table" as required for the GoI to activate properly.

I also don't agree that a statement clearly defining an event in the shooting phase can be interpreted as being more valid for a "general" case than for the specific case. Is it mentioned anywhere else that the unit shares the space with the transport?

Regarding plasma gets-hot wounds, the models are off the table already, When they take their plasma wounds they are removed from play as well as being off the table.

Flinty wrote:Regarding plasma gets-hot wounds, the models are off the table already, When they take their plasma wounds they are removed from play as well as being off the table.

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty." (Remove casualties, Pg 24, emphasis mine)
Therefore, if model is not on table, it cannot be removed as casualty.

Formosa wrote:The FaQ says shooting and temporary, how can it apply to a phase other than shooting?
Also this still does not state they are bought back onto the table, just that in the shooting phase they temporarely "co-exist" with the transport, for the purposes of shooting and psy powers.

#1) temporary refers to the unit being embarked. They are not just embarked for the shooting phase, they are embarked for the movement, shooting and assault phases. They "temporarily co-exist with the vehicle" as long as they are embarked. to read it any other way ignores the context of the unit being embarked, and is not linguistically correct.

#2) The part about them being removed is not a requirement of casting GoI.

So once we cast GoI and find out we can't remove the unit from the table what do we do?

We have a choice, Either:

We can't remove the unit from the table then the game breaks, as we are not told what to do after this.

Or:

If the models are already removed from the table by being embarked, you simply pretend that they were removed and the game works just fine. (This is backed up by the unit co-existing with the vehicle and the vehicle being on the table, so the unit must be "On the table" even though the models are off the table.)

If one interpretation breaks the game, and another lets the game go on just fine. We must choose the option that does not break the game.

Flinty - and, again, the FAQ does NOT limit it just to the shooting phase - it makes a blanket, general statement that they coexist.

It is "temporary" because you can disembark, meaning they no longer coexist

Any other reading is simply making gak up with no written support.

We can't remove the unit from the table then the game breaks, as we are not told what to do after this

The game does not break. Cast gate. Done. Then, as one action, remove the models from the table and place them back. Cant do this, so done. Nothing else happens in gate. So, cast your power, it does nothing, and you move on. Its like casting a movement or shooting power when you cant move or shoot--just because you can cast the power does not remove external restrictions from preventing actions.

Nos, just to be clear, why does temporarially co-existing with a vehicle mean the models are on the table? Co-existing is not related to being on something by any defination that.

If bacteria co-exist with us in our colon, and we are on a table, then according to you the bacteria co-existing with us are on the table. However, this is not the case. The bacteria are not on the table, they are infact off the table. The bacteria and us are still seperate things, just like the vehicle and embarked unit are still seperate units.

DevianID wrote:Then, as one action, remove the models from the table and place them back. Cant do this, so done.

Uh, no.

This is the same issue as we had back before GW clarified what happens to units needing to come on from Reserve but being unable to do so. If the rules tell you to do something, and something else is preventing you from doing so, you can't just say 'Ok, then' and move on unless there is another part of the rule that tells you to do that.

Gate tells you to remove the models from the table. It doesn't mention what you should do if that is not possible for some reason... and so there is no possible action to take in that situation. The game breaks at the point where you are forced to take an action but are unable to do so.

rigeld2 wrote:What rules do you follow to remove a model from play that's off the table? Could you cite them for me?

Sang Priests don't have any rule excluding the bubble while in vehicles, but your rule makes it not work.

And you haven't cited once - despite repeated requests - where the restriction to the shooting phase is in that FAQ. Posting it again is worthless.

The removed from play part i have no idea, i assume your asking someone else, as i havent said removed from play, just removed from the table (page 66)

Sang priests was just something i was unaware of to be honest, but the brb tells us how bubble effects work so its fine.

I have cited many times what part of the FAQ refers to the shooting phase, your chooseing to ignore it.

Now a question for you

How do i shoot outside of the shooting phase? As the FAQ mentions the shooting phase (REf: "taget their vehicle is fireing at")

Formosa wrote:I have cited many times what part of the FAQ refers to the shooting phase, your chooseing to ignore it.

False. We've asked what part of the FAQ restricts the co-existing to the shooting phase. You haven't shown that once.
Yes the FAQ refers to the shooting phase - but the wording does not restrict the co-existing statement to the shooting phase.

How do i shoot outside of the shooting phase? As the FAQ mentions the shooting phase (REf: "taget their vehicle is fireing at")

Death or Glory.
Inquisitor Coteaz has "I've been expecting you"

And the mentioning of the shooting phases irrelevant. It is not a restriction that they only ever co-exist in the shooting phase.

So you're also saying that wargear that isn't present on the table (and other non wargear abilities) can affect the battle?
That's... kind of a big deal.

Edit:

The removed from play part i have no idea, i assume your asking someone else, as i havent said removed from play, just removed from the table (page 66)

Actually no. It was addressed to you. yes, it was a new page but it was the post directly after yours.
Model with Gets Hot fails its save. It's off the table because it's in a Chimera.
How can we remove it from play when it's already off the table?

If tech support is helping me with my computer and tells me to restart but I've already shut it down, what do I do?

Nivek5150 wrote:If tech support is helping me with my computer and tells me to restart but I've already shut it down, what do I do?

The answer is obvious.
Ignore Tech Support.
Since of course you can't restart a powered off box, their instruction cannot be followed.
Duh.

Formosa wrote:
How do i shoot outside of the shooting phase? As the FAQ mentions the shooting phase (REf: "taget their vehicle is fireing at")

You're still missing the point. Yes, the FAQ mentions the shooting phase... Because it is answering a question about shooting.

But the part about the squad coexisting with the vehicle is not tied to the shooting phased. It's just a clarification of why the rules work as they do.

Inquisitor Coteaz of the Grey Knights can shoot outside of the shooting phase.

There, can we settle that now?

He can't shoot outside of the shooting phase while embarked, though, as "I've been expecting you" requires Los.

Also, this wasn't mentioned yet, but earlier I said Co-existing things don't share the same position. So an embarked unit coexisting with the vehicle is not on the table by virtue of coexisting.

DevianID wrote:He can't shoot outside of the shooting phase while embarked, though, as "I've been expecting you" requires Los.

Also, this wasn't mentioned yet, but earlier I said Co-existing things don't share the same position. So an embarked unit coexisting with the vehicle is not on the table by virtue of coexisting.

The underlined is false.

If something coexists, it exists in the same place, as it is coexisting.

Formosa wrote: As the FAQ mentions the shooting phase (REf: "taget their vehicle is fireing at")

quite simple; you are making an unwarranted assumption

Rulebook_FAQ wrote: Q:must passengers fire at the same target that their vehicle is firing at

A:no, they are a separate unit (albeit they are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire at a different target

notice that in their reasoning, the verb hasn't yet completed "are...coexisting". all you can gather from this is that the action has started, but hasn't yet completed. Now the question is what will end that action. You state that the shooting phase is what ends the action, since the question is regarding the shooting phase, but that is erroneous. To imply that would mean that from the sentence "Bob and Bill are both 21 and so they can drink", I would infer bob and bill being 21 only applies to them drinking.

So if we can't find what ends the state of action, or starts it for that matter, in the question, we have to assume it will remain until something changes that state. phrases such as that in GoI cause the unit inside the transport and the transport itself to no longer be co-existing, since we are told to take the unit off the table, not the transport as well.

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote:He can't shoot outside of the shooting phase while embarked, though, as "I've been expecting you" requires Los.

Also, this wasn't mentioned yet, but earlier I said Co-existing things don't share the same position. So an embarked unit coexisting with the vehicle is not on the table by virtue of coexisting.

The underlined is false.

If something coexists, it exists in the same place, as it is coexisting.

As above. Devian - you are denying what coexisting actually means