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.

Keep up this sillyness and you'll be on your way to earning another reputation besides being illiterate.

why single me out?? is it my cool user name or my cool avater pic that has people hating?? ok i am acrap at gaming and should not come on the rules sections as i dont read cos i am illeterate, maybe i should just post pics of my conversions and painted mini's? then we will see who the daddy is.

why single me out?? is it my cool user name or my cool avater pic that has people hating??

Uh, no... Posting 'I disagree' without saying why you disagree, is what will 'single you out'

It's fine to disagree, but if you're not going to back it up with a valid argument, you're not contributing anything to the thread.

That's OK Beef. You get on board. I'll drive!

I agree with yakface about the double hit from explosion issue being askew of the actual point so I will try not to mention it any further. The thing I do disagree with though is the fact that vehicle wrecks do not have access points. Here's my case:

One of the reasons for passengers to make an emergency disembark move is because their vehicle is destroyed. They will not make this move unless that qualifier is true. So, if the rules tell us that passengers must disembark fom a destroyed vehicle then they have to get out of somewhere. I'm even willing to say that the picture of the half-circles is the only valid disembarkation area (even from a wreck). But, either way, they're still getting out of a wreck. It's either that or we say that the rulebook wasted a whole lot of text to just say that passengers are always killed when their vehicle gets destroyed since their are no access points on a wreck and they can't get out. I suppose they might not be destroyed since they are still on-table. So they can just sit their in their steel box with nothing to do but fire indirect fire weapons and such.

The only argument to be made against this is that all of the events happen simultaneously. That simply cannot be true since simultaneous things cannot cause each other to happen.

I am agreeing with Glaive Co. Like he said he is driving and i am just here for the ride. When i disagree its no point me re-writing what he has already stated. my fingure will get artheritus like that.

The only argument to be made against this is that all of the events happen simultaneously. That simply cannot be true since simultaneous things cannot cause each other to happen.

Just because you can't grasp how all damage effects can be simultaneously resolved doesn't mean it can't happen. When a vehicle suffers a destroyed result all the damage effects are triggered, none of them before the other. So the vehicle explodes while the passengers disembark while the vehicle becomes a wreck.

When all is said and done the passengers have disembarked and the vehicle is a wreck.

I agree with yakface about the double hit from explosion issue being askew of the actual point so I will try not to mention it any further. The thing I do disagree with though is the fact that vehicle wrecks do not have access points.

So, why exactly does a wreck have access points? Because it has to? Does that mean the passengers can get back inside the wreck? The wreck can move away and keep shooting with it's weapons?

Seriously, you can't have it both ways.

No comment as when yakface gets going the reading gets to long for me lol

No comment as when yakface gets going the reading gets to long for me lol

Then why post?


Anyway, a valid point has been made by Yakface that has yet to be disproven.

P1-The disembarking models must disembark from within 2" of the vehicle's access points.

P2-The 'wreck' does not have "access" points.

P3-A vehicle has access points.

C1-regardless of damage being taken the unit disembarks from a 'vehicle' and not a 'wreck' therefore the unit cannot disembark into the same 'vehicle' they are disembarking from.

yakface: "Seriously, you can't have it both ways."

That's funny. I was going to say that to you with the whole explosion affecting the passengers thing. We won't go into it again though. I'm willing to admit that I can't grasp how simultaneous things can cause each other to happen. The main problem with the whole "simultaneous" argument is that the rules don't say anything like that. They say to disembark the passengers if the vehicle is destroyed. It doesn't tell us to consider this as happening simultaneously. It doesn't tell us that while the vehicle is exploding the passengers are disembarking. It doesn't tell us that the vehicle stays in a state of limbo between wrecked and intact until the passengers have disembarked. If you're placing models on the table in an emergency disembark scenario and someone asks you why you're models are being placed what will you tell them? The answer won't be "the vehicle is becomming a wreck." The answer will be "their vehicle got destroyed."

Maybe you mean that even though the steps must occur in sequence the end result is to consider the entire thing simultaneous. I suppose that's possible, but that would be an assumption of the intent since that is never stated anywhere.

yakface: "So, why exactly does a wreck have access points? Because it has to? Does that mean the passengers can get back inside the wreck? The wreck can move away and keep shooting with it's weapons?"

The answer to the first question is obvious, but only because I believe there is a step process. If you believe that all of the steps happen simultaneously the passengers are disembarking/embarked from/inside both a wreck and an intact vehicle and it becommes pointless to even say that a wreck has access points.

The second question has been answered.

The third question is answered by the fact that the rulebook doesn't give us a way to embark troops into a wreck. It lists what must be done in an emergency disembark scenario from a wreck, but not an embarkation into a wreck.

The fourth question is a little strange because the existence of access points really shouldn't effect the vehicle's ability to move and shoot. So, we must be talking about the differences between a vehicle and a wreck. Aside from the stated rules (blocking LOS, cover save, etc) the book really doesn't list the differences. They probably feel that it is understood without saying that wrecks probably lose the ability to move and fire. Really though, this has no bearing on this discussion at all.

The fourth question is a little strange because the existence of access points really shouldn't effect the vehicle's ability to move and shoot. So, we must be talking about the differences between a vehicle and a wreck. Aside from the stated rules (blocking LOS, cover save, etc) the book really doesn't list the differences. They probably feel that it is understood without saying that wrecks probably lose the ability to move and fire. Really though, this has no bearing on this discussion at all.

The difference is being brought up because the vehicle has access points while a wreck does not. The wreck can be moved onto as if it were 'difficult terrain'.

Therefore since disembarking rules state that disembarking is done from 'access' points the models aren't disembarking from a wreck since they do not have any, they are disembarking from a vehicle. As such they cannot stack on the vehicle model, therefore they cannot disembark back onto the same vehicle they are disembarking from, regardless of why the models are disembarking. This is supported by the RaW as Yakface and I have shown. You have yet to disprove this.

Glaive Co wrote:

That's funny. I was going to say that to you with the whole explosion affecting the passengers thing. We won't go into it again though. I'm willing to admit that I can't grasp how simultaneous things can cause each other to happen. The main problem with the whole "simultaneous" argument is that the rules don't say anything like that. They say to disembark the passengers if the vehicle is destroyed. It doesn't tell us to consider this as happening simultaneously. It doesn't tell us that while the vehicle is exploding the passengers are disembarking. It doesn't tell us that the vehicle stays in a state of limbo between wrecked and intact until the passengers have disembarked. If you're placing models on the table in an emergency disembark scenario and someone asks you why you're models are being placed what will you tell them? The answer won't be "the vehicle is becomming a wreck." The answer will be "their vehicle got destroyed."

Maybe you mean that even though the steps must occur in sequence the end result is to consider the entire thing simultaneous. I suppose that's possible, but that would be an assumption of the intent since that is never stated anywhere.

To be fair, I fully understand how a reasonable person could indeed come to the conclusion that disembarking passengers get hit by the exploding vehicle. But honestly (as I've said in previous posts), that particular aspect of the argument really has no bearing on wrecks having Access Points and passengers disembarking into that wreck.

No matter how you want to slice it there is simply no evidence to support that wrecks have Access Points.



But going back to the whole concept of simultaneous play: The rules don't ever need to say things are necessarily simultaneous. If the rules don't list a particular sequence of effects then the only logical method to play by is a simultaneous approach.

For example, the "start of the turn". In the rules, a whole bunch of things happen at the "start of the turn". If you start treating these events sequentially as soon as you perform the first one, technically we are no longer at the "start of the turn".

So even though the rules don't specify as such, all events that occur at the "start of the turn" must occur simultaneously. All IB tests, All reserve rolls, All Deep Striking, etc.

In reality, we obviously cannot physically perform all these actions simulatenously, but in the realm of the game we must treat these events as if they have occured as such. Playing otherwise would be making an assumption not supported by the rules.


So as an example, say at the "start of the turn" there is some sort of Orbital Barrage and Deep Strikers both hitting/landing at the exact same spot. Does the Orbital barrage hit the Deep Strikers? The answer is clearly no, because if we played it that way then we would have actually been playing that the Deep Strike occured before the Orbital Strike; something we know to be incorrect.

The events occur simulatneously, and when they are finished being resolved the strike has hit models previously on the board at that spot, and the deep strikers have been placed on the board.

The same concept applies to vehicle damage because the rules do not specify that the different aspects of the damage are worked out in some sort of sequential order. Therefore we must assume that they all occur simultaneously.

Well, I've said it before an I'll say it again; Maybe I'm trying to insert too much logic into my reading of the rules. It must be a hazard of my profession, because I simply can't wrap my head around this simultaneous issue.

To use your example of the deep strikers being hit by an orbital bombardment: I would rule that they are hit. If we are saying that deep strikers arrive simultaneously with orbital bombardment then they are on the table when the bombardment is happening. This doesn't sound right from a fluff perspective, but simultaneous means there is no time gap in between the events. A unit that deploys normally will also be on the board simultaneously with the arrival of the bombardment. The only difference between the unit that deploys normally and the unit that deep strikes is that one was there before the bombardment. Both are there during the bombardment though if the events happen simultaneously. The only way the deep strikers would be safe would be if they arrived after the bombardment.

yakface: "If the rules don't list a particular sequence of effects then the only logical method to play by is a simultaneous approach."
This may be the problem right here. I believe that the rules do give us a partiular sequence of events. I can't see how the vehicle getting destroyed doesn't cause the passengers to disembark. It seems that you can't see how these events can't be simultaneous. I don't know if it's possible for one of us to convince the other here, so I don't know where to go. I can't think of any more evidence that we haven't already used.

It will be impossible to move forward until we have resolved this issue though. The larger issue (can passengers emergency disembark onto their own vehicle?) hinges completely on the belief of the smaller issue (do the damage results happen simultaneously to the disembarkation?).

To summarize the two sides: If you believe that the events happen in a sequence of steps then the passengers are disembarking from a wreck because the vehicle is destroyed before they get out. So, the next question to ask is do wrecks have access points. If you believe they do, then the passengers will complete their emergency disembark move. If you believe they do not the passengers will be either trapped on board or destroyed. If the passengers can disembark then they can be placed on top of the wreck since models can stack on top of wrecks.

If you believe the events happen simultaneously the passengers will be able to disembark for the fact that the vehicle will be a vehicle and a wreck simultaneously as well as the fact that the passengers will be embarked and disembarked simultaneously.

I can't see how the vehicle getting destroyed doesn't cause the passengers to disembark.

Hey Glaive,
look at it like this, the reasoning behind the disembarking is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you disembark because you wanted to, because the vehicle took a pen hit, the vehicle was destroyed or your momma told you (heh) the fact remains that in order to disembark you must do so from access points. Since vehicle are the only models that have access point then you are, by the RaW, disembarking from a vehicle. The vehicle does in fact turn into a wreck but it would then be AFTER your models disembarked that this happens.

If you are saying that the vehicle becomes a wreck THEN the models disembark then you would be breaking the RaW as there are no 'access' points on a wreck.

Sure. Sounds good to me. Does it really matter anyways? It appears that only 4 of us even care about this enough to keep it going and 3 of us will probably never disembark models onto their own wreck anyways (for RAW or sports reasons). I'm not sure how Beef intends on playing it so I will not speak for him.

So, the effects of the wreck all happen simultaneously, including the disembarkation of passengers (but excluding any explosion effects which happen beforehand). With this understanding of the RAW models may never make an emergency disembark onto their own wreck because models can't stack. I'm fine with letting it rest there so that we can concentrate on more important things like using tank skimmers to tank shock into CC or something. Let's consider this the end of it. I suggest this thread be locked because if anyone else posts here I will be forced to destroy this thread with my anger (ala Master Shake). Anyways, there's 5 stars next to the thread and I think that means we have to go report to the death chamber before a sandman is dispathced to dfind us.

i will disembark onto my wreck as we usually just put a crater down instead of the vehickle so my marines will be in the middle of a crater. on minute they are sitting in the Rhino trudging along, ZZapp and a lascannon destroys that and then my marines are sitting in a crator. SIMPLE,

and crators block line of sight and they are area terrain. Pls dont correct me if i am wrong. i dont care.

will disembark onto my wreck as we usually just put a crater down instead of the vehickle so my marines will be in the middle of a crater. on minute they are sitting in the Rhino trudging along, ZZapp and a lascannon destroys that and then my marines are sitting in a crator. SIMPLE,

Great house rule....

and crators block line of sight and they are area terrain. Pls dont correct me if i am wrong. i dont care.

So does that make you better than the rest of us who are discussing actual rules and not your made up ones? ;-)

ok ok, you are not wrong, now are you going to add to the discussion? ;-)

 

EDIT: Added smilies..

there is unfortunatly no such thing as actual rules. They vary from store to store and unfortunatly from tournament to tournament. I have been to tournies where the judges verdict is final and no matter of protesting changes that. I have seen people who were right have to shut up as the majority think they were wrong including the judges. Therefore i place no faith in ACTUAL rules. If you are right and go to a tournie, if everybody there says you are wrong, what are you going to do??
NOTHING thats what. This explains my carefree attitude to rules. Its not a reflection of my intellect.

I warned you guys!

The only way that a model can actually disembark onto their own wreck is by using a process that yakface and I have dubbed "The Disembarkinator." We have spent countless hours devising this process and are finally at a point where we can unveil it to the public. Before I explain it fully you all must acknowledge the intense work we had to go through to bring this magic to life. A team of swedish scientists have been toiling away carefully collecting samples of goo from the floor of the amazon rain forest for years now. After billions of dollars worth of research the goo was finally analyzed and discovered to be an elixir of untold power beyond the hopes of anyone on the team incuding yakface and myself. Cargo ships and planes were immediately dispatched to harvest the magic substance, but unfortunately the site where the magic sauce was discovered had become a Wal-Mart.

Undaunted, the team set out to re-create the substance (only after pausing to get a delicious fruit smoothie from the dairy isle). Only by a horrible lab accident was the substance actually able to be recreated in a synthetic form. Unfortunately, the accident left beef paralyzed from the neck up and caused D.I.G. to grow an extra appendage of un-specified type. Fortunately, I emerged un-scathed, but yakface ,forever scarred, still haunts the lab to this day. If one listens closely, one can hear him playing his Casio 1500 using the "Jazz Organ" setting somewhere deep in the bowels of the lab. Of course he has been dubbed "the Phantom of the Emergency Disembarkation Lab." Sometimes Wynton Marsalis stops by and they jam and if you're ever in the Hollywood area you can check out their show around 10 at the Blue Note.

...wait...That's not the story of how we solved the emergency disembark problem. That's the story of how we started Jazztone records (a subsidiary of Games Workshop R). Yeah, emergency disembark onto your own wreck? You can't do that.

Yawn. . . Stretch. . . My what a nice nap, what did I miss. . . . Nothing! OMG you guys are on the same crappy as topics you were on before! I totally solved this equation months ago. You can target two different units as long as the first unit is not in LOS. LOS cannot be drawn through the legs of another model, unless that model is over 5.2 feet tall, and has no loin cloth. This rule does not pertain to space marines unless it will win them the game. If unsure, let the space marine player decide. You can disembark unto a reck because a reck is not a vehcile, it is terrain, terrain has no "exit points" so the troops are trapped inside forever, but since this all happens in the past, we can safely assume that they starved to death and as such no units will embark on transports for fear of the small cramped spaces and total darkness.

Yawn. . . Stretch. . . My what a nice nap, what did I miss. . . . Nothing! OMG you guys are on the same crappy as topics you were on before! I totally solved this equation months ago. You can target two different units as long as the first unit is not in LOS. LOS cannot be drawn through the legs of another model, unless that model is over 5.2 feet tall, and has no loin cloth. This rule does not pertain to space marines unless it will win them the game. If unsure, let the space marine player decide. You can disembark unto a reck because a reck is not a vehcile, it is terrain, terrain has no "exit points" so the troops are trapped inside forever, but since this all happens in the past, we can safely assume that they starved to death and as such no units will embark on transports for fear of the small cramped spaces and total darkness.

What Honkey Bro was "trying" to say is look at page 21 paragraph 3 and you will find the sentence that answers all these questions.

Fine, enough with this thread. I think all the salient points have been covered. Until it we discuss it again in 3 weeks. . .