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.

Consider the following:

At my FLGS our tournament coordinator is very dedicated to strict interpretation of the the rules (fine by me). For any of the following answers I need page numbers and citation please.

I was recently playing a (casual) game for the purpose of practice against Dark Eldar with Craftworld Harlequins, and my two fusion pistol packing clowns got close enough to blow up his 'skiff' with ten soldiers in it. I then, subsequently attempted a charge into them (having the benefit of ignoring difficult terrain and assault grenade this was not the discrepancy). According to him, our 'tournament coordinator' deems that an illegal move and that occupants of a transport may only be charged if the vehicle explodes. The term used in the BRB says "destroyed". Is a wrecked vehicle classified as 'destroyed'?

If Ten Harlequins shoot two fusion pistols at a Rhino, and the damage to the Rhino amounts to a wreck, where the 5 occupants must emergeny disembark, can they be assaulted? Why or why not?

Thank you for your considerations

Yes.
(from the brb, under the 'vehicle wrecked' section) "...the tortured vehicle simply cannot take any more. The vehicle is destroyed..."

Page 74 is where Wrecked is defined.

This includes the common meaning of destroyed as Destroyed is not defined in the BRB.

As above. A vehicle which is either wrecked or explodes has been destroyed.

Can the occupants of a 'destroyed' vehicle be assaulted by the unit that destroyed the vehicle from 'shooting' it?

I contend that they can.

Yes. Wrecked is destroyed per the BRB and you can charge the passengers as described.

"A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is immediately wrecked. the tortured vehicle simply cannot take any more. The vehicle is destroyed, and its crew are slain. The model is left in place and becomes a wreck." -BRB Page 74, Wrecked Vehicles

"As all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, a squad cannot wreck a Transport and then file at its occupants. However, if a Transport is destroyed by a shooting attack, any unit that shot it that turn can, if allowed, charge the now disembarked passengers." -BRB page 80

 Seerpath wrote:
Consider the following:

At my FLGS our tournament coordinator is very dedicated to strict interpretation of the the rules (fine by me). For any of the following answers I need page numbers and citation please.

I was recently playing a (casual) game for the purpose of practice against Dark Eldar with Craftworld Harlequins, and my two fusion pistol packing clowns got close enough to blow up his 'skiff' with ten soldiers in it. I then, subsequently attempted a charge into them (having the benefit of ignoring difficult terrain and assault grenade this was not the discrepancy). According to him, our 'tournament coordinator' deems that an illegal move and that occupants of a transport may only be charged if the vehicle explodes. The term used in the BRB says "destroyed". Is a wrecked vehicle classified as 'destroyed'?

If Ten Harlequins shoot two fusion pistols at a Rhino, and the damage to the Rhino amounts to a wreck, where the 5 occupants must emergeny disembark, can they be assaulted? Why or why not?

Thank you for your considerations

Wow. That sounds like a really bad situation in regards to the wrong person running events.

There really is no such thing as someone being dedicated to a 'strict' reading of the rules, because 'RAW' is essentially a myth. That's because what one person reads as the 'strict RAW' can be entirely different from someone else's reading of the same 'strict RAW'.

So when someone prides themselves on playing by the 'strict RAW' that's actually just a nice way of saying that this person thinks that their particular interpretation of the rules is always right, which makes them a very bad person to be running events because it means they generally don't listen and empathize well with others.

But then in your example you're talking about a situation in the rules that is EXPLICITLY spelled out in the rules, AND it sounds like you brought the issue up to him and he disagrees with you? In that case it sounds like you have someone who not only thinks that their interpretation of the rules is always right, but also doesn't actually take the time to double-check their assessments when making a ruling.

And that is a double-combo package of real danger signs for someone who is running events at a LGS.

I personally would be extremely reluctant about playing in such an environment!