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.

insaniak is correct. There are no Easter eggs in the rule book .

I suppose the main problem I'm having with this rule as it's being interpreted here is understanding the mechanism by which it carries over from one turn to another and the definition of turn which people are using for it.

For example in the rulebook it is stated under the section for turns that "Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means a player turn unless it specifically refers to a 'game turn"

Now this would seem to limit most actions in the game to only having an effect on the player turn in which they're carried out.

The consensus that seems to have been reached here is that a disembark action affects the player in their subsequent psychic, shooting, and assault phase regardless of whether or not the disembark happened on their turn or the opposing players turn, with undue gravity being given the word "subsequent." Particularly given the context that the section is written in - that of a unit willingly disembarking from a transport.

Now, if we take this word to mean that the effects of a disembark action jump player turns, and are not resolved at the end of the turn in which it occurs how would we play this:

A tactical squad with a heavy bolter begins their turn in a rhino with one hull point remaining, moves 12 inches and then during the shooting phase moves flat out into difficult terrain - a one is rolled and the rhino wrecks, forcing the marines to disembark out of their rhino. The controlling player's turn ends and the other guy takes his turn. When it comes back around to the controlling player's tactical squad on his next turn he does not move his squad during his movement phase and then fires in his shooting phase. Is he firing snap shots or is he firing normally?

If we are to apply the rule as it has been asserted here - a unit that disembarks (willingly or otherwise) counts as having moved in it's subsequent shooting phase, that heavy bolter is firing snap shots. Is this correct? Or are the effects of a disembark move limited to the turn in which they occur?

So, if it's bottom of turn two, and you pop my transport, since my turn is a different turn entirely (top of turn 3) does it carry over? Regardless, I agree with insoniak

Ceaser wrote:
So, if it's bottom of turn two, and you pop my transport, since my turn is a different turn entirely (top of turn 3) does it carry over? Regardless, I agree with insoniak

I don't know? Does it?

Cindis wrote:
The consensus that seems to have been reached here is that a disembark action affects the player in their subsequent psychic, shooting, and assault phase regardless of whether or not the disembark happened on their turn or the opposing players turn, with undue gravity being given the word "subsequent." Particularly given the context that the section is written in - that of a unit willingly disembarking from a transport.

I'm not sure how you're classing the import of the word 'subsequent' as being given 'undue gravity' given that it's precisely the key to determining how this works.


Essentially, the rule is saying that after being forced out of vehicle, you're going to count as moving next time you shoot or cast a psychic power regardless of which player's turn that occurs in.

A tactical squad with a heavy bolter begins their turn in a rhino with one hull point remaining, moves 12 inches and then during the shooting phase moves flat out into difficult terrain - a one is rolled and the rhino wrecks, forcing the marines to disembark out of their rhino. The controlling player's turn ends and the other guy takes his turn. When it comes back around to the controlling player's tactical squad on his next turn he does not move his squad during his movement phase and then fires in his shooting phase? Is he firing snap shots or is he firing normally?

That would depend on whether you take the 'their subsequent shooting phase' as applying to 'their [the army's]' or 'their [the unit's]' shooting phase. The rulebook is somewhat unclear on this.

If you apply it to the army as a whole, then yes, the unit's subsequent shooting phase would be their next turn.

If you apply it to the unit, then their subsequent shooting phase is simply the next time they would be eligible to do something in the shooting phase. Which could be any time they disembark. That leads to a certain amount of uncertainty over whether their next shooting phase should be the next time they are allowed to shoot, or the next time they actually try to shoot... so is probably not correct.


So, in conclusion - the rule as written works just fine for regular disembarking, or for being forced to disembark in your opponent's turn, but I rather strongly suspect that being forced to disembark in your own shooting phase simply wasn't considered by the writer of this rule.

 insaniak wrote:
Essentially, the rule is saying that after being forced out of vehicle, you're going to count as moving next time you shoot or cast a psychic power regardless of which player's turn that occurs in.

Ok, so lets say that same unit is charged in it's opponent's Assault phase but instead of a heavy bolter it has a Grav-gun, a Salvo 2/3 weapon. How many shots does it get for Overwatch? By the ruling here it would get 2 shots, since it counts as moving the next time it shoots regardless of player turn, correct?

Now say it is out of combat by the end of his opponent's turn, say by either Hit and Run or by winning the combat and consolidating. It doesn't move during it's movement phase and fires again, how many shots would it get now? It last tried to fire in the opponent's turn, so is it now free to fire it's full complement during the controlling player's turn? What if it didn't get charged in the turn before? Does it now fire only 2 shots because this is the first time it's been given the opportunity to shoot since it disembarked?

The problem I have with this idea that disembarking in either turn effects what happens in the next (or subsequent) player phase is that you start having to do a lot of mental acrobatics to fit it into these scenarios - conflicts with other rules and contradictions with basic game terminology starts to arise.

If you read the line in a vacuum, as we have here - the argument that it effects either players turn would seem compelling. However, if we take that line in the overall context of the "Embarking & Disembarking" section that it was written in - one that describes the normal course of events for a unit disembarking a transport in it's own turn, then the rule becomes much easier to reconcile with others and applies consistently in all scenarios.

In this section a unit disembarks during it's own movement phase, a disembarkation is described as placing models 1" away from any access point and then making a normal move, so long as the model does not end more than 6" from an access point. It then counts as having moved for that turn, and in the subsequent psychic and shooting phases which come after the movement phase in a standard player turn. It is this normal move made after disembarking that is being referred to later in the same section by the clause "counting as having moved that turn." Simple, clean, and easy.

And turn, as stated earlier in the rulebook, refers to a player turn by default unless specifically stated otherwise as being a game turn. At the beginning of that units next turn it can then safely be assumed that it has not moved for that turn.

Now when the disembarkation happens on the opposing players turn the same limitations apply, with the additional caveat that the models may only move 3" instead of the standard 6", this is the only deviation from the normal course of events as outlined under the Vehicle Damage and How it Affects Passengers. So the model disembarks, moves up to 3" and then counts as having moved during that player turn only this time the turn it counts as having moved in is the opponent's and not the controlling players, effecting things like Salvo weapons in overwatch. At the beginning of the next player turn it will then revert to a non-moving state.

In this version, where disembark moves are not assumed to carry over from turn to turn the rule can be applied consistently and with no conflicts or assumptions.

You're making this far more complicated than it actually is.

In the unit's next psychic and shooting phases, they count as having moved. So anything they try to do in those phases that is affected by movement is resolved as if they had moved.

No mental gymnastics required.

I'll simplify it then since you don't want to address the rules as written.

I disembark from a transport in my movement phase I count as having moved in my subsequent shooting phase in the same turn. No dispute there.

I am forced to disembark in my shooting phase through a failed dangerous terrain check my shooting phase ends, my turn ends, the opponent take his turn, my next turn begins, I remain stationary during my next movement phase. Do I still count as having moved in my shooting phase?

Failing a dangerous terrain test that wrecks the vehicle during a flat-out move in a shooting phase is such an unbelievably specific and unusual situation that I don't blame GW at all for not writing the rule in such a way as to cover that scenario sensibly.

If that DOES happen, agree with your opponent what to do, ask a judge, or roll a die.

Every other situation is sufficiently covered.

Cindis wrote:
I'll simplify it then since you don't want to address the rules as written.

I disembark from a transport in my movement phase I count as having moved in my subsequent shooting phase in the same turn. No dispute there.

I am forced to disembark in my shooting phase through a failed dangerous terrain check my shooting phase ends, my turn ends, the opponent take his turn, my next turn begins, I remain stationary during my next movement phase. Do I still count as having moved in my shooting phase?

You're ignoring rules as written. Rules as written states only the psychic and shooting phases are affected. My movement phase is not. If we played, you wouldn't get your way. A TO would agree with me 10/10 times. You have no argument. This thread is invalid.

Cindis wrote:
I'll simplify it then since you don't want to address the rules as written.

I disembark from a transport in my movement phase I count as having moved in my subsequent shooting phase in the same turn. No dispute there.

I am forced to disembark in my shooting phase through a failed dangerous terrain check my shooting phase ends, my turn ends, the opponent take his turn, my next turn begins, I remain stationary during my next movement phase. Do I still count as having moved in my shooting phase?

I already addressed this.

Yes, you would count as having moved in your subsequent shooting phase. It's a little silly, but probably an oversight.

Ceaser wrote:


You're ignoring rules as written. Rules as written states only the psychic and shooting phases are affected. My movement phase is not. If we played, you wouldn't get your way. A TO would agree with me 10/10 times. You have no argument. This thread is invalid.

We're talking about whether or not a unit that is forced to disembark counts as having moved in it's next shooting phase.

As most people in this thread seem to be arguing a disembarkation, forced or otherwise, affects the players next shooting phase, regardless of whose turn it occured on.

The language "subsequent shooting phase" seems to be confusing a lot of people, since they take that as meaning the next shooting phase. If it's your turn, as it is in the context of the rule being written in the book, that phase happens directly after your movement phase. If you're forced to disembark in your opponent's phase, again you count as having moved in your opponents turn - which would effect things like overwatch.

If you then take the rule and apply it from your opponents turn into your turn things start getting complicated, definitions start getting twisted, and rules start being broken or ignored, as they have in the examples I posted.

If someone can point me to the rule that allows the moved condition to carry over from one player turn to another I'd appreciate it.

Let's look at the full rule . . .



If you read the full rules in context, disembarking is talking about a normal disembarking that occurs in the player's movement phase and I marked in red the indicators of this.

I marked in green where the rules make first mention of a disembark during the enemy's turn. Prior to that point, the rules on disembarking were only dealing with disembarking that occurs during the movement phase, ie normal disembarking.

Notice where I marked in green the sentence adds info with regards to 'the Assault phase of its own turn' which fits perfectly fine if we interpret the prior portions in red as 'normal disembarking during your movement phase' but is logically confusing if we interpret that sentence as applying also to forced disembarking from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn. The green portion makes mention of its 'own turn' which it would not need to if the red portion was already inclusive of the situation where 'a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn'. If the red portion was already inclusive then 'their subsequent Assault phase' would already be 'the Assault phase of its own turn'.

Cindis wrote:
The language "subsequent shooting phase" seems to be confusing a lot of people, since they take that as meaning the next shooting phase.

That's what 'subsequent' means, yes.

If someone can point me to the rule that allows the moved condition to carry over from one player turn to another I'd appreciate it.

You mean other than the rule that we've been discussing this whole time?


It's not that the rule 'carries over'... On the turn that they disembark they count as having moved because they moved. In their subsequent psychic and shooting phases (which if they disembarked in the opponent's turn will mean their next turn) they count as having moved in those phases because the rule under discussion here says that the do.

It's two separate conditions that are being applied. The former is just the result of actually moving. The latter is an extra condition that is applied to cover situations where the unit disembarks at some time other than their own movement phase, so that they don't get to ignore the fact that they moved when it comes time to shoot or cast psychic powers.

You've found one specific scenario so far where the RAW results in a slightly peculiar outcome. That happens with 40K... less common scenarios are quite often overlooked by the rules writers. The rest of the time, the rules as written here work just fine.

The problem is that you have been unable to reconcile the rules as written, using the correct definition of the word 'turn' in particular, with any of the in-game scenarios I've presented. You've done an excellent job dodging the questions put to you, however.

Only one interpretation covers all the scenarios, using proper terminology as per RAW. And that is the unit counts only as having moved in the turn it disembarks. Otherwise, as you've amply demonstrated, you have to start bending definitions or flat out manufacturing ways to fit your ruling to the problem presented... It only counts for the next time the unit attempts to shoot? Where'd you dig up that nonsense? Let's see the page number on that one.

Simply ignoring scenarios that are inconvenient to your position doesn't do much for your credibility, especially when a viable alternative has been shown to work instead.

Cindis wrote:
The problem is that you have been unable to reconcile the rules as written, using the correct definition of the word 'turn' in particular, with any of the in-game scenarios I've presented. You've done an excellent job dodging the questions put to you, however.

What are you talking about? You've provided ONE situation where the rules result in a slightly peculiar outcome.

That's not a proof that the interpretation of the rules is incorrect, just a proof that they're a little wonky in that particular situation.

Only one interpretation covers all the scenarios, using proper terminology as per RAW. And that is the unit counts only as having moved in the turn it disembarks.

The problem being that while this interpretation might cover your scenarios, it doesn't match the actual rules.

Otherwise, as you've amply demonstrated, you have to start bending definitions or flat out manufacturing ways to fit your ruling to the problem presented... It only counts for the next time the unit attempts to shoot? Where'd you dig up that nonsense?

You seem to have critically misunderstood that post. The reference to it only applying the next time the unit shoots was provided as a strong suggestion that a particular possible interpretation was likely incorrect.

Simply ignoring scenarios that are inconvenient to your position doesn't do much for your credibility.

I'm not sure what my 'credibility' has to do with anything. I'm discussing interpretations of the rules for a game of toy soldiers, not running for mayor. However, please point out which scenario I have ignored. So far as I can recall, I've addressed every scenario you have presented, but it's possible I missed one.

Or are you taking 'The rules are a little weird in this particular situation' as 'ignoring' the scenario?

 insaniak wrote:

Cindis wrote:
The problem is that you have been unable to reconcile the rules as written, using the correct definition of the word 'turn' in particular, with any of the in-game scenarios I've presented. You've done an excellent job dodging the questions put to you, however.

What are you talking about? You've provided ONE situation where the rules result in a slightly peculiar outcome.

That's not a proof that the interpretation of the rules is incorrect, just a proof that they're a little wonky in that particular situation.

Only one interpretation covers all the scenarios, using proper terminology as per RAW. And that is the unit counts only as having moved in the turn it disembarks.

The problem being that while this interpretation might cover your scenarios, it doesn't match the actual rules.

Otherwise, as you've amply demonstrated, you have to start bending definitions or flat out manufacturing ways to fit your ruling to the problem presented... It only counts for the next time the unit attempts to shoot? Where'd you dig up that nonsense?

You seem to have critically misunderstood that post. The reference to it only applying the next time the unit shoots was provided as a strong suggestion that a particular possible interpretation was likely incorrect.

Simply ignoring scenarios that are inconvenient to your position doesn't do much for your credibility.

I'm not sure what my 'credibility' has to do with anything. I'm discussing interpretations of the rules for a game of toy soldiers, not running for mayor. However, please point out which scenario I have ignored. So far as I can recall, I've addressed every scenario you have presented, but it's possible I missed one.

Or are you taking 'The rules are a little weird in this particular situation' as 'ignoring' the scenario?

Cindis is correct in that you are trying to read the one rule in isolation. If you read the rule in context, you can see a clear differentiation between where it discusses normal disembarking vs forced disembarking during the opponent's turn. In order to claim RAW you must also read the rules in their entire context. The rule you are debating, when read in context, is only applying to the normal situation of disembarking (ie during the unit's movement phase).

Cindis wrote:
The problem is that you have been unable to reconcile the rules as written, using the correct definition of the word 'turn' in particular, with any of the in-game scenarios I've presented. You've done an excellent job dodging the questions put to you, however.

Only one interpretation covers all the scenarios, using proper terminology as per RAW. And that is the unit counts only as having moved in the turn it disembarks. Otherwise, as you've amply demonstrated, you have to start bending definitions or flat out manufacturing ways to fit your ruling to the problem presented... It only counts for the next time the unit attempts to shoot? Where'd you dig up that nonsense? Let's see the page number on that one.

Well, the impacting colonel provided the rule, let's see what it says again:

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

Disembarking
...
Disembarkation Restrictions
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule.

I've bolded the pertinent statement in mind. "(I)n THEIR subsequent Shooting/Assault Phase" is the pertinent portion. If it was just "in THE subsequent Shooting/Assault Phase", than it would only apply to the turn in which the Disembark happened.

Is your opponent's Shooting Phase and Assault Phase the one used by your models? Aside from striking back in the Assault Phase, Sweeping, Falling Back, and other datasheet specific rules, the answer is no. They do not do anything in your opponent's phases, but they do have many options of actions available in their owner's phases.

Basic extrapolation from there then indicates that the one the phases the models possess as "theirs" is their owning player's phases. Which means that the consideration isn't made until the models can check for Targets to Shoot or to Charge.

As for movement in the Movement Phase, I'm more in the caveat interpretation since it makes more grammatical sense. To put it another way, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (counting as having moved that turn), but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase." This method of writing flows better and makes more contextual sense. This means that do not have to sit still in the Movement Phase, but standing still will make no difference on Salvo, Heavy, and Ordnance Shooting than if you did.

"Counting as moving that turn" is an adjectival present participle clause modifying "models".

For clarity, we can present the rule as follows with the participle clause immediately adjacent to the noun it modifies.


When we parse it properly as an adjectival present participle, we can see that "that turn" refers to the state of the models "after disembarking", ie the turn in which the models disembark.

Up to this point, the disembarking rules have only been discussing what happens during normal disembarking (ie disembarking that happens during the unit's movement). 'Subsequent phase' in the context of normal disembarking is the psychic and shooting phase immediately following the disembarking unit's movement phase.

The text immediately following the above rule is . . .



This would appear to be the portion of the rules which discuss the special case of what happens when you disembark "from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn"


Again you want to look at the entire section on disembarking to see the clear differentiation between the discussion of normal case (red) and special case (green).

Ok, let's simplify it a bit.

A unit with salvo weapons is forced to disembark its transport during its opponents shooting phase, it is then charged in its opponents assault phase. How many shots does it fire for overwatch?

If we're to assume to reading of the rule as presented in this thread is correct that disembarked unit would get its full complement of shots, as they are not considered to have moved until their subsequent shooting phase, and there is no shooting phase for that unit in its opponents turn.

Is this correct?

Cindis wrote:
Ok, let's simplify it a bit.

A unit with salvo weapons is forced to disembark its transport during its opponents shooting phase, it is then charged in its opponents assault phase. How many shots does it fire for overwatch?

If we're to assume to reading of the rule as presented in this thread is correct that disembarked unit would get its full complement of shots, as they are not considered to have moved until their subsequent shooting phase, and there is no shooting phase for that unit in its opponents turn.

Is this correct?

Yes, as it's the assault phase, and he is to only be counted as moving for the shooting phase. In the assault phase, for over watch purposes, per rAw, he can shoot full salvo

Charistoph wrote:
If in the caveat perspective, the "counting as having moved that turn" only applies to the "their subsequent shooting phase" and not the entire turn. In other words, if disembarking from a Wreck, the owning player's Movement Phase they are not having been considered as Moved, so they can move or not. But if even if they do not move during the Movement Phase, they still snap fire Heavy Weapons.

This: For the purposes of firing Heavy and Salvo weapons, models count as having moved during their turn, whether or not they actually moved, due to the Emergency Disembark.

And this is what I have NOT been playing correctly (or rather, not enforcing with my opponents because, let's face it, I play Eldar and my Heavy Weapons don't care if they moved or not).

Ceaser wrote:

Cindis wrote:
Ok, let's simplify it a bit.

A unit with salvo weapons is forced to disembark its transport during its opponents shooting phase, it is then charged in its opponents assault phase. How many shots does it fire for overwatch?

If we're to assume to reading of the rule as presented in this thread is correct that disembarked unit would get its full complement of shots, as they are not considered to have moved until their subsequent shooting phase, and there is no shooting phase for that unit in its opponents turn.

Is this correct?

Yes, as it's the assault phase, and he is to only be counted as moving for the shooting phase. In the assault phase, for over watch purposes, per rAw, he can shoot full salvo

Incorrect! Per RAW, "that turn" refers to the turn that the models disembark. The rules deal with the special case of a disembark in the enemy turn in the portion of the rules marked green. Red marks the normal case of disembarking during the player's movement phase.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect! Per RAW, "that turn" refers to the turn that the models disembark. The rules deal with the special case of a disembark in the enemy turn in the portion of the rules marked green. Red marks the normal case of disembarking during the player's movement phase.

Spoiler:

Disembarking
A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either
before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the
vehicle has not moved more than 6".
If the vehicle had not moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle can then move
normally. If the vehicle had already moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle
cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running
or charging). In addition, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or Ram on a turn that a unit
disembarks from it.

Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method:
place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its
flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an
enemy model or within impassable terrain.
The model can then make a normal move – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests
should be taken as normal, but it must end its move wholly within 6" of the Access
Point it disembarked from (we assume that any distance that is lost because of this
has been used getting out of the Transport). Repeat this process for each model in the
unit. At the end of the unit’s move, all models must be in unit coherency.

Disembarkation Restrictions
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in
their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot
declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed
vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn
unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule.

I disagree. There is stronger contextual reference to consider the "counting as moving that turn" to be a caveat to the previous statement of "models can manifest their psychic and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting Phase". No distinction is made regarding to the reason for the Disembark, and the following sentence does nothing to change that. Indeed, the latter sentence may be poorly referencing a Vehicle that receives an Explodes! result (poorly because you do not disembark from that result) as both Wrecked and Explodes! both reference the Transport as being destroyed.

This means that when the models reach their subsequent Shooting Phase, they count as having moved that turn, whether they moved in the Movement Phase or not.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect! Per RAW, "that turn" refers to the turn that the models disembark. The rules deal with the special case of a disembark in the enemy turn in the portion of the rules marked green. Red marks the normal case of disembarking during the player's movement phase.

Spoiler:

Disembarking
A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either
before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the
vehicle has not moved more than 6".
If the vehicle had not moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle can then move
normally. If the vehicle had already moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle
cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running
or charging). In addition, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or Ram on a turn that a unit
disembarks from it.

Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method:
place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its
flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an
enemy model or within impassable terrain.
The model can then make a normal move – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests
should be taken as normal, but it must end its move wholly within 6" of the Access
Point it disembarked from (we assume that any distance that is lost because of this
has been used getting out of the Transport). Repeat this process for each model in the
unit. At the end of the unit’s move, all models must be in unit coherency.

Disembarkation Restrictions
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in
their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot
declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed
vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn
unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule.

I disagree. There is stronger contextual reference to consider the "counting as moving that turn" to be a caveat to the previous statement of "models can manifest their psychic and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting Phase". No distinction is made regarding to the reason for the Disembark, and the following sentence does nothing to change that. Indeed, the latter sentence may be poorly referencing a Vehicle that receives an Explodes! result (poorly because you do not disembark from that result) as both Wrecked and Explodes! both reference the Transport as being destroyed.

This means that when the models reach their subsequent Shooting Phase, they count as having moved that turn, whether they moved in the Movement Phase or not.

Caveat? That is not a grammatical term. First you need to deal with the actual grammar of the sentence.

"Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause as it lacks a noun and is not a standalone statement. As a dependent clause, it modifies some 'noun' or 'verb' in the independent clauses of the sentence. "Counting as moving that turn" is a present participle clause that adjectivally modifies the noun "models" in the first of two independent clauses in the rule. What counts at moving that turn? Answer: 'the models count as moving that turn'. The dependent clause has nothing to do with the prepositional phrase "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and provides no clarifying information with regards to 'phrase', caveat or otherwise, because 'phrase' most assuredly is not 'counting as moving that turn'.

Basically, asserting that 'counting as moving that turn' acts as a caveat to 'in their subsequent Shooting phase' is utterly nonsensical since it violates the grammar of the sentence. Whatever 'contextual' read you think you are arriving at cannot go against basic grammar. Try again.

So, when we adhere to the actual grammar and do a proper contextual analysis, we come to the conclusion that "counting as moving that turn" describes and provides additional clarifying information as to the current state of the models, which happens to be "after disembarking".

If you want to get grammatical I think the issue is poor use of the specific determiner "that" in "that turn" leading to ambiguity in which specific turn is being referred to, i.e. the turn of disembark or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
If you want to get grammatical I think the issue is poor use of the specific determiner "that" in "that turn" leading to ambiguity in which specific turn is being referred to, i.e. the turn of disembark or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.

Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.

There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').

For clarity, we can present the rule as follows with the participle clause immediately adjacent to the noun it modifies.

col_impact wrote:
Caveat? That is not a grammatical term. First you need to deal with the actual grammar of the sentence.

I wasn't going for Oxford English Professor-level of grammatical science here. I was using the word caveat as how it is learned it, which is, "a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations." Now if considered in that frame of mind, then it makes perfectly fine grammatical sense for the phrase "counting as moving that turn" to be a caveat to previous phrase of "models can manifest their psychic and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting Phase". You seem to be using the "counting as moving that turn" in a list sense, as in addition to the allowance to use psychic powers and to shoot in the subsequent phase.

col_impact wrote:
"Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause as it lacks a noun and is not a standalone statement. As a dependent clause, it modifies some 'noun' or 'verb' in the independent clauses of the sentence. "Counting as moving that turn" is a present participle clause that adjectivally modifies the noun "models" in the first of two independent clauses in the rule. What counts at moving that turn? Answer: 'the models count as moving that turn'. The dependent clause has nothing to do with the prepositional phrase "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and provides no clarifying information with regards to 'phrase', caveat or otherwise, because 'phrase' most assuredly is not 'counting as moving that turn'.

I believe I referenced that it is a dependent clause, considering that I treat it as a caveat to the previous statement. In other words, while "models count as having moved during that turn", is a perfectly viable statement, considering that it would make more sense to state such a list as, "models count has having moved during that turn, can manifest psychic and either shoot or Run in the subsequent Shooting Phase, but cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault Phase.", covers a proper listing reference using the Phases in proper order.

However, the statement of moving is made after the statement of shooting, indicating that it is more properly considered as thus, "models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (counting as having moved that turn), but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.", and treating the statement of counting as moving as a proviso of limitations to the shooting phase and not as a list member.

col_impact wrote:
Basically, asserting that 'counting as moving that turn' acts as a caveat to 'in their subsequent Shooting phase' is utterly nonsensical since it violates the grammar of the sentence. Whatever 'contextual' read you think you are arriving at cannot go against basic grammar. Try again.

So, when we adhere to the actual grammar and do a proper contextual analysis, we come to the conclusion that "counting as moving that turn" describes and provides additional clarifying information as to the current state of the models, which happens to be "after disembarking".

Again, I disagree. The organizing of lists in order of sequence is standard policy and grammatical use and used often in the writing of this rulebook, which this sentence does not use. The fact that moving does place certain limitations to the shooting phase does in fact carry contextual weight. I think it is more that you have a different concept of "caveat" than I do.

Who counts as moving that turn isn't the issue, though.

col_impact wrote:
Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.

There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').

For clarity, we can present the rule as follows with the participle clause immediately adjacent to the noun it modifies.

Spoiler:

After disembarking, models, counting as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.

To the contrary, I think models in their subsequent shooting phase is an appropriate noun to count as having moved that turn, but then, I explained that above.